justkillingtime

It is claimed that conservatism has no foundational document. Conservatism supposedly has no Das Kapital or a Mein Kampf from which it can draw its meaning and purpose. Conservatism is alleged to be without ideology or dogma. Instead conservatism is supposed to be based on what leading conservative thinkers and writers throughout history have said it means.

But this puts conservatism in the position of being dependent on principles that were formulated by people that are identified as conservatives without having any hard and fast criteria that can be used to identify conservatives in the first place. If we define conservatism by what leading conservatives want, we must identify leading conservatives without knowing what conservatism means. This gives politicians, the news media and the internet population at large carte blanche to define conservatism as it suits them. Conservatism can be lauded or lambasted at the merest whim. People can make conservatism up as they go along. Conservatism has, therefore, become the depository for everything that liberals dislike and the refuge for every libertarian who is really a scoundrel at heart.

But conservatism is based on certain core ideological beliefs. Conservative ideology is universal; it is not dependent on the conservative’s day and age; on his race, g****r or religion; on his social class, nationality or his form of government. Conservatism is not based simply on what people that we today choose to identify as conservatives wanted in the past. Conservatism is not something ephemeral that can be made up to suit somebody’s political purpose or private agenda. There are certain things- certain ideologies- that naturally make a conservative a conservative. Conservatives have a natural longing for stability while liberals, and their libertarian brethren, are perfectly happy with chaos. The purpose of conservatism is to establish and maintain a stable, functional and self-sustaining society. Conservatism’s purpose and the conservative’s longing for stability give conservatism certain inherent ideological components.

American conservatism has nothing to do with the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Conservatism transcends these things. Your views on the proper purpose, size or scope of government does not determine whether or not you are a conservative. Your acceptance of certain core ideological axioms makes you a conservative.

I. Social contract
Each generation is indebted to the ones that came before it and is obligated to the ones that come after it.
A. Tradition
Society is based upon and must uphold tradition to the extent that tradition stabilizes society.
B. Environmental conservation
1. Individuals must be willing to forgo maximum immediate profit for the sake of long-term sustainability. No generation is entitled to exhaust wh**ever natural resources it may have inherited from its forefathers.
2. Extract the greatest material benefit from the resources that are used by using resources in the most efficient manner.
C. Economic stability
1. Favor sound monetary policy to stabilize market prices and discourage speculation that can create market bubbles that will inevitably burst causing societal upheaval.
2. Avoid excessive debt that can hamper the ability of future generations to deal with wh**ever socio-economic and national security problems that may arise.
II. Interrelationship between property and liberty
A. Stabilizing influence of property
1. Societal upheaval can put the property at risk.
2. A property owner is more likely to respect the property of others in order to insure that others respect his own property.
B. Property rights
1. Individuals must be able to acquire property.
2. Individuals must be able to sell property.
3. Property rights cannot be absolute. Society has a right to regulate property rights so no one can infringe on the property rights of others by exercising an absolute right of his own.
III. Interrelationship between property and power
A. Wealth equals power
1. Wealth must be regulated as power is regulated.
(a) Regulate the wealthy so they cannot oppress the poor with their power.
(1) Guaranteed human rights for all individual regardless of wealth.
(2) Guaranteed broad but otherwise limited civil rights coupled with an upwardly mobile society that offers the chance of acquiring civil rights in the future (by coming of age or acquiring property for example).
(3) Impose taxes that allow private property to be used for public benefit since people who enjoy society’s protection for their property have a moral obligation to sustain society.
(4) Oppose laissez-faire economics since unregulated capitalistic markets concentrate wealth (and poverty) because the profit motive exacerbates human nature and allows individuals to sack, maim, pillage and destroy; lie, steal, c***t and k**l for the sake of profit.
(b) Regulate the poor so they cannot oppress the wealthy with their numbers.
(1) Oppose democratic societies in favor of republican/royal government where the will of a momentary majority does not automatically determine government policy.
(2) Oppose progressive taxation and income re-distribution schemes as immoral; taxes can be used as a regulatory tool, but no one should be obligated to pay more taxes simply because they can afford to do so.
IV. Importance of society/government as a means to protect inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., property.
A. The individual and society exist in partnership with each being dependent on the other.
1. Participating in society is not voluntary because society is necessary to impose order on individual humans that are by nature orderless.
(a) Society has a right to impose its will on the individual and thereby maintain law and order while upholding traditions in order to stabilize society.
(b) Nobody has a right to rebel against a legitimate government and all lawful means of redress must be exhausted before force can be used against an illegitimate government meaning that a majority can impose its will on a minority so that being in the minority does not gain you any rights or privileges that are inconsistent with public order and society’s preservation.
2. Society has an obligation to protect its constituent parts against the individual actions of its constituent parts.
(a) Nobody has a right to engage in behavior that puts society, i.e., other people, at risk regardless of whether or not the individual believes his behavior is victimless.
(b) Government has a right to use force against the governed in order to maintain its own sovereignty meaning that government can regulate access to the means by which the governed can use force.
3. Individuals may act outside of the confines of society and may use deadly force if necessary whenever society cannot take timely action to protect life or property from criminal behavior.
B. Society is a living organism.
1. The more varied the constituent parts of society are the more buffered the society is meaning a greater variety of constituent parts gives society a greater stability.
(a) Society must recognize the divergent natural abilities (such as physical strength and intelligence) of its constituent parts and understand that these divergent natural abilities will lead to ine******y that society must more-or-less accept.
(b) Society must try to even out gross socio-economic ine******y that could lead to societal disruption (conservatives are opposed to the mass concentration of both wealth and poverty), but society cannot wantonly expend its resources in an endless effort to achieve e******y among its constituent parts.
(c) Society has the right to impose a certain amount of conformity on individuals for the sake of insuring societal cohesion between its constituent parts.
2. Society must uphold human rights to life, liberty and property consistent with public order and the insurance of society’s future.
C. Government
1. Society is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.
(a) Collective action by society serves a needful purpose by promoting the commonwealth of society.
(b) Government must have the power to do wh**ever needs to be done to promote the commonwealth of society whenever the constituent parts of society cannot or will not take action.
2. Government is a reflection of the governed
(a) Individuals must not become dependent on their government for their daily sustenance lest the government assume undue power unto itself.
(b) Government’s powers must be divided into separate but mutually dependent departments so no part of the government can assume undue power unto itself.
(c) The government must be answerable to the governed lest it abuse the governed.
(d) The government must be responsive to the governed lest the governed rebel against the government because it cannot meet the needs of the governed.
V. Self-evident t***hs of human nature
A. Humans are by nature self-serving, self-centered and greedy brutes as evidenced by the whole of human history.
B. Human nature is not alterable by natural means; putting others ahead of one’s self is the antithesis of human nature and no individual, when left to his own devices, will ever do it.
1. Human society is inevitable; otherwise human beings will destroy each other because they cannot live peaceably in a state of nature.
2. All human society can do is compensate for human nature by imposing its will on the individual so as to prevent the individual from harming others or harming himself in a way that drains society’s resources.
C. Faith or religion may be able to overcome human nature in that an individual may be prompted to give consideration to others for the sake of faith or religion.
1. Society cannot legitimately impose its will on the individual in matters of faith or religion but personal conscience does not automatically give an individual a right to separate himself from society or shirk his obligation to maintain society.
2. Society has an obligation to allow and even encourage faith and religion consistent with public order; nobody should have to forfeit his faith/religion for the sake of gaining human or civil rights or forfeit his human or civil rights for the sake of peacefully practicing his faith/religion.
VI. Human biology is unalterable by any natural means
A. Biology makes men and women distinct from each other with natural strengths and weaknesses; a man cannot naturally be a woman, nor can a woman naturally be a man.
1. Men and women are mutually dependent on each other due to their respective biological functions.
2. Society must uphold and maintain the distinction of men and woman for the sake of its own survival.
VII. Society driven by human nature cannot be perfect because human nature is not perfect
A. Change is inevitable
1. Human societies are always subject to the forces of the natural environment that can wreak wholesale changes to society that society is powerless to stop.
2. Societal inertia naturally leads to conflict
(a) People that have comfortable lives naturally want to preserve the status quo.
(b) People who feel themselves oppressed will naturally seek to better their situation.
B. Each generation has a moral obligation to confront the shortcomings of the generations that came before it so as to not perpetuate these shortcomings on posterity and thereby allow the failures of past generations to accumulate and put society at risk; no generation is so great that its posterity is obligated to maintain its failures.
C. Change for the mere sake of change is folly
1. All change, regardless of how necessary it may be, must be weighed against the long-term disruptive effects it may have on society; change is not automatically change for the better.
2. A perfect society is impossible due to the imperfection of human nature so it is pointless to constantly strive for utopia- something that can never exist; furthermore the desire for perfection leads invariably to a desire for change for the sake of change and this puts society at grave risk.
3. It is better to accept society as it is and wait for change to come in the natural course of events than it is to risk society’s total destruction caused by immediate change whose long-term consequences cannot be anticipated.
D. Restorative change
1. Experience shows what has worked well in the past.
2. Society should always encourage restorative change.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

A very insightful and comprehensive description, for the most part!

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the most part, this is an excellent piece of work, and if the poster actually wrote it, kudos to him/her. If he got it from elsewhere, I'd appreciate knowing where he found it. I totally agree with most of the points, but found a few with which I disagree, so perhaps I am not really a conservative?

Either I don't truly understand the following points made in the presentation, or I take exception to them for various reasons. They include:

Regulate the wealthy so they cannot oppress the poor with their power.

Impose taxes that allow private property to be used for public benefit since people who enjoy society’s protection for their property have a moral obligation to sustain society.

Oppose laissez-faire economics since unregulated capitalistic markets concentrate wealth (and poverty) because the profit motive exacerbates human nature and allows individuals to sack, maim, pillage and destroy; lie, steal, c***t and k**l for the sake of profit.

Regulate the poor so they cannot oppress the wealthy with their numbers.

Oppose progressive taxation and income re-distribution schemes as immoral; taxes can be used as a regulatory tool, but no one should be obligated to pay more taxes simply because they can afford to do so.

Nobody has a right to rebel against a legitimate government and all lawful means of redress must be exhausted before force can be used against an illegitimate government meaning that a majority can impose its will on a minority so that being in the minority does not gain you any rights or privileges that are inconsistent with public order and society’s preservation.

Nobody has a right to engage in behavior that puts society, i.e., other people, at risk regardless of whether or not the individual believes his behavior is victimless.

Government has a right to use force against the governed in order to maintain its own sovereignty meaning that government can regulate access to the means by which the governed can use force.

The more varied the constituent parts of society are the more buffered the society is meaning a greater variety of constituent parts gives society a greater stability.

Society is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.

Government must have the power to do wh**ever needs to be done to promote the commonwealth of society whenever the constituent parts of society cannot or will not take action.

Humans are by nature self-serving, self-centered and greedy brutes as evidenced by the whole of human history.

Put simply, I place more faith in the goodness of individuals as a whole than the writer does. Additionally, I believe no sovereignty is greater than the individual human sovereignty.

justkillingtime

Solely my own work based on my lifetime of studying history and politics, although I have posted it in other places.

I was a conservative before I had even heard of the term. My parents were divorced before I was 6 years old. My father never paid child support and my mother worked 50-60 hours a week. My father slept around during the marriage, my mother did so after the divorce. I haven’t seen my father more than a few dozen times since the divorce, and I’ve had no contact with him at all since 1983. And my mother was always semi-estranged from her family. So I’ve always had an severe need for a normal existence and stability.

[quote]Either I don't truly understand the following points made in the presentation, or I take exception to them for various reasons. They include:

[i]Regulate the wealthy so they cannot oppress the poor with their power.[/quote]

Pure conservatism going all the way to Edmund Burke who is credited as being the Father of Conservatism.

http://praxeology.net/EB-EIP.htm

The Reformer, 10 March 1748.

The riches of a nation are not to be estimated by the splendid appearance or luxurious lives of its gentry; it is the uniform plenty diffused through a people, of which the meanest as well as greatest partake, that makes them happy, and the nation powerful. When this is wanting, the splendor of the great is rather a reproach than honour to them: as Mr. Addison justly censures an Italian prince, whose subjects lived in the greatest poverty, and were exposed to continual dangers for want of a bridge over a rapid river, whilst he lived in the utmost magnificence. [Online editor’s note: English writer Joseph Addison (1672-1719), in his 1718 book Remarks on Several Parts of Italy. – RTL.] It is the care of every wise government to secure the lives and properties of those who live under it: why should it be less worth consideration, to make those lives comfortable, and these properties worth preserving? Whoever travels through this kingdom will see such poverty, as few nations in Europe can equal. In this city [Online editor’s note: Burke was writing in Dublin; the earlier reference to “this kingdom” likewise means the “Kingdom of Ireland” rather than Great Britain as a whole. – RTL.] things have the best face; but still, as you leave the town, the scene grows worse, and presents you with the utmost penury in the midst of a rich soil. Nothing perhaps shews it more clearly, than that though the people have but one small tax of two shillings a year, yet when the collector comes, for default of payment, he is obliged to carry off such of their poor utensils, as their being forced to use denotes the utmost misery; those he keeps, until by begging, or other shifts more hard, they can redeem them. Indeed money is a stranger to them; and were they as near the Golden Age in some other respects, as they are in this, they would be the happiest people in the world. As for their food, it is notorious they seldom taste bread or meat; their diet, in summer, is potatoes and sour milk; in winter, when something is required comfortable, they are still worse, living on the same root, made palatable only by a little salt, and accompanied with water: their clothes so ragged, that they rather publish than conceal the wretchedness it was meant to hide; nay, it is no uncommon sight to see half a dozen children run quite naked out of a cabin, scarcely distinguishable from a dunghill, to the great disgrace of our country with foreigners, who would doubtless report them savages, imputing that to choice which only proceeds from their irremediable poverty. Let any one take a survey of their cabins, and then say, whether such a residence be worthy any thing that challenged the title of a human creature. You enter, or rather creep in, at a door of hurdles plastered with dirt, of which the inhabitant is generally the fabricator; within-side you see (if the smoke will permit you) the men, women, children, dogs, and swine lying promiscuously; for their opulence is such that they cannot have a separate house for their cattle, as it would take too much from the garden, whose produce is their only support. Their furniture is much fitter to e lamented than described, such as a pot, a stool, a few wooden vessels, and a broken bottle: in this manner all the peasantry, to a man, live; and I appeal to any one, who knows the country, for the justness of the picture. Who, after having seen this, comes to town and beholds their sumptuous and expensive equipages, their treats and diversions, can contain the highest indignation? Such follies considered in themselves, are but ridiculous; but when we see the bitter consequences of them, ‘twere inhumanity to laugh. BOCCALINI, to create a distaste for false glory, introduces SFORZA Duke of Milan, making his triumphal entry into Parnassus, attended, by order of Apollo, by all whom his victories had made miserable. [Online editor’s note: Italian satirist Traiano Boccalini (1556-1613), in his 1612 Reports from Parnassus. – RTL.] Never (says that writer) was seen so sad a spectacle; the eyes of the most obdurate were melted into tears, to see such an infinite number of creatures; some starved in loathsome hospitals, some mangled and hewed to pieces by horrid wounds, some trampled to death under horses’ feet; and others begging their bread on the road; their prince’s service, in which they had lost their blood, and exposed their lives to a thousand dangers, not having furnished them with enough to carry them to their homes, which, to their misfortune, they had so foolishly abandoned. As he passed, a thousand curses were thrown on him, on the art of war, and that false love of glory, which renders mankind miserable. I fancy, many of our fine gentlemen’s pageantry would be greatly tarnished, were their gilt coaches to be preceded and followed by the miserable wretches, whose labour supports them. That some should live in a more sumptuous manner than others, is very allowable; but sure it is hard, that those who cultivate the spoil, should have so small a part of its fruits; and that among creatures of the same kind there should be such a disproportion in their manner of living; it is a kind of blasphemy on Providence, and seems to shew, as our motto finely expresses it, ‘the Heavens unjust.’ Our modern systems hold, that the riches and power of kings are by no means their property, but a depositum in their hands, for the use of the people: and if we consider the natural e******y of mankind, we shall believe the same of the estates of gentlemen, bestowed on them at the first distribution of properties, for promoting the public good: and when, by the use they make of their fortunes, they thwart that end, they are liable to the same or a greater reproach than a prince who abuses his power. Is it not natural for a man, who ride sin his coach on a bitter day, or lies on his velvet couch, secured from all the inclemencies of the weather, to reflect with pity on those who suffer calamities equal to his enjoyments?

But there are some people who shut their hearts to charity, and to excuse their want of compassion, throw all the fault as well as misfortune on the unhappy poor. Their sloth, say those, is the cause of their misery. ‘Tis pleasant to observe, that this objection frequently comes from those who in all their lives have not been as serviceable to their country, as the idlest of these poor creatures in one day; but the falsity of the thing shews evidently the ignorance of the assertors. We shall examine into their means, and thence judge, how much the greatest industry does or can better them. There are three kinds of people in the country besides the gentlemen of fortune; we shall begin with the lowest and most numerous, the labourers; they have an acre of land at a very high rent, to pay which they must work for their master a great part of the year; the rest is employed in cultivating their own garden for an immediate support; then judge what time they have to produce clothes and other necessaries for themselves and their families: thus they must labour, and that without intermission, for the lowest livelihood; yet there are few whom hard seasons or other calamities have not sometime in their lives sent to beg. The poorer kind of farmers, called in some parts of the kingdom cottiers, live nigh as miserably as the former, though they hold larger quantities of land, but at such a rent as both hurts them and the landlord. Gentlemen perceiving that in England farmers pay heavy rent, and yet live comfortably, without considering the disproportion of markets, and every thing else, raise their rent high, and extort it heavily: thus none will hold from them but those desperate creatures who ruin the land (in vain) to make their rent; they fly; the ;landlord seizes, and to avoid the like mischance, takes all into his own hands; which being unable to manage, he turns to grazing: thus one part of the nation is starved, and the other deserted. The rich farmers or graziers, the third sort, hold vast quantities of land, and as they live like estated men, equally contribute to the poverty of the rest.

The evil is easier seen than remedied; but perhaps the example of a gentleman of fortune, whom I knew, may be useful: he came early to the possession of an estate valued 2000 l. per Ann. [Online editor’s note: librae per annum Latin for “pounds per year.” – RTL.] but set to a vast number of tenants at a very high rent: as usual in such cases, nothing could be in a worse condition than his estate; his rents ill paid, the land out of heart, and not a bush, not a tolerable enclosure, much less habitation, to be seen. He found his leases out, but he did not study, with the greediness of a young heir, how to raise the price nor value of his lands, nor turn out all his poor tenants to make room for two or three rich. He retained all those to whose honest industry he had been witness, and lowered his rents very considerably; he bound them to plant certain quantities of trees, and make other improvements. Thus in a few years things had another face, his rent was well paid, his tenants grew rich, and his estate increased daily in beauty and value: there was a village on it, which was equally ruinous with the rest; when he designed the improvement of this, he did not take the ordinary method of establishing horse-races and assemblies, which do but encourage drinking and idleness; but at a much smaller expence he introduced a manufacture, which, though not very considerable, employed the whole town, and in time made it opulent.

Notwithstanding all this, no person lives more hospitably in the country, in the town more genteel. I have often heard him discourse on this subject. ‘I have lowered my rents (says he) but how much am I the poorer? What gratification do I want? ‘Tis true, I have not every month some new invented carriage coming from England to make the town amazed at my folly; I keep no French cook, I wear my own country manufactures; by which means I save, I believe, more than I lose by the lowness of my rent: at the same time I am satisfied I am making numbers happy, without expence to myself, doing my country service without ostentation, and leaving my son a better estate without oppressing any one.’

Had many of our gentlemen the same just way of thinking, we should no doubt see this nation in a short time in the most flourishing condition, notwithstanding all the disadvantages we labour under. But while they proceed on a quite opposite plan, it can never emerge, though we were possessed of many more advantages than we are able to boast of.

***

Wealth equals power and it must be regulated as power is regulated or else people with wealth will oppress people who don’t have wealth and drive them to r*******n. This is exactly what the English eventually did in Ireland.



In other words you are a libertarian, not a conservative. A conservative understands human nature; a liberal/libertarian does not. A liberal/libertarian will always think that people are honest and good and thus will always allow the individual to take action that harms others or disrupts society. But a conservative rightly understands that when left to their own devices to act in accordance with their personal self-interest an individual will always lie, steal, c***t and k**l; sack, maim, pillage and destroy.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually I AM a new member of the Libertarian Party. And I believe I understand human nature pretty well. I see most people as decent and well-meaning people because I do not see them doing terrible things. Yes, some DO do horrid things, but most people do NOT. The LAST word to use to describe me is "liberal". Liberal I am not.

I most vehemently disagree with your last sentence above. I don't believe it is true, and I believe that when one actually believes that, it removes part of his own humanity - OR - it is giving him a "pass" to be self-centered. Nor do I agree that liberals see individuals as "good". I believe the opposite is true. If they see individuals as "good", then why must they demand to control everyone, place limits on everyone, dictate behavior?

Lots of things here to discuss, but I have a doctor's appointment and must run.

Interesting and fun post. Later ~

Loki Loc: Georgia

If I may simplify and condense, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A judicious application of Occam's Razor. There is more than one definition of Liberal; the original, and still generally accepted version in some parts of Europe is one who espouses absolute minimal government intervention in the marketplace, and mnimal governmental interference in the affairs of the governed. I will expound when I have time. Good post, by the way.

justkillingtime

Then you are a fool. Most people don’t abuse others because they respect the laws that tell them that they cannot abuse others. Take away the law and take away the restraints imposed by religion and societal norms and human nature will invariably show itself.

justkillingtime

No. If there is, then you are claiming carte blanche the right to make up the terms as you go along and not submit to any kind of universal standard. If we can both decide for ourselves what the terms mean, then neither of us can be correct because there is no unbiased third party standard to hold either of us accountable.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

The is such a thing as "over-simplification. The Ockham's Razor theory cannot fit all circumstances! In a country as diverse and as populated as the U.S. and with the records that are available, "assumptions" don't have to be made that would effect the decisions made with respect to ideologies.
There is a lot "broke" in this country and with government that needs to be "fixed". Just because your point of view seems to be the prevailing one at this time, doesn't mean it's the correct one and isn't "broke".

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ditto, when I look at government, I see very little that is NOT broken, in severe need of fixing. I believe the prevailing view of Americans is exactly the same as you and I see things. Our government is totally broken, and in my opinion, beyond repair.

TheCracker

In the C*****rs eyes. It is not so much the government which is broken, rather the citizens.

I cannot help but be reminded that conservative citizens are akin a concerned adult, watching as their liberal kinfolk are running about spoiled and throwing conniption fits every time they do not get a lollypop or new toy.

Conservatives have learned lessons taught over time, the liberals - being scatterbrained, are constantly in r*******n and careless of mouth.

This may be a quick synopsis, but I feel, appropriate.

The C*****r
cmvrwc

bahmer

Quite true this country was founded on the principals of the Holy Bible and the Ten Commandments of God. I believe that John Adams said that the constitution and our laws were set up for a Christian nation and that if we were not Christian it would fail. I don't know which one of our founding fathers stated that if we were not a Christian nation that you could not write enough laws to control that society and that appears to be the case today.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~
I agree with your conclusions, but still insist the government as a whole should be better than unruly children, regardless what party they claim to represent. If they are incompetent, they are incompetent. I think where we failed was to allow people who are totally clueless to v**e, clueless about how our government works, clueless about how programs are funded, about the economy, etc. If we continue to allow the terminally ignorant to v**e in those who will give away the store to them, we are doomed.

justkillingtime

The same goes for libertarians who go around calling themselves conservatives. But the libertarian’s desire to be free of government regulation is as dangerous to society as liberalism is.

Libertarians think we can all survive with practically no government. But they fail to understand the very reason why we have government:

“We hold these t***hs to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” –Declaration of Independence.

In the 18th century the pursuit of happiness meant the pursuit of property. Libertarians want to acquire property without any government regulation. But in doing so they will invariably infringe on the property rights of others.

A man regulated by only his own profits and passions will be a danger to all. Thus government is necessary and will be proportionate to the danger.

The only difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that while both would allow the individual to act in a manner contrary to the safety and happiness of others and the security of society, a libertarian doesn’t think anyone ever has to pay for the consequences. A liberal will sleep around and expect society to take care of his bastard children. A libertarian will sleep around and think his bastard children don’t need to be taken care of.