You're not comparing libertarianism with conservatism: you're comparing federalist and centrist forms of government. The axes are orthogonal.
I am indeed comparing libertarianism with conservatism (when I say "conservatism," assume "authentic American conservatism," as, firstly, we are in America, and, secondly, words should be assumed to refer to authentic, rather than false, objects). For a libertarian, there is no goal higher than individual liberty from government coercion within a sphere he deems an individual right. For a conservative, however, liberty is a primary interest, but so is the preservation of tradional institutions and the rule of law, without which liberty is invariably lost. A conservative realizes that liberty was not suddenly invented in the 18th or 19th Century, but is a product of an ancient organic development, and rests on a complex outgrowth of that development. A libertarian, on the other hand, would think little of clearing away every convention and starting anew, to establish his dream of a "libertarian paradise," while this would rightly horrify a conservative. That is why I say that a libertarian would think little of ignoring the constitution (i.e., federalism) , so long as this makes possible the establishment of his own personal idea of a libertarian paradise (
such as you described in one of your recent posts). This is a rootless tree, and will not live to see day two. Radicalism has never resulted in enduring liberty, and never will.
You say I am referring to federalism, not conservatism, however you miss the point. A conservative realizes that liberty is a delicate organic development, which relies for its continued existence on the support of a complex system, deeply rooted in history and tradition, and the institutions it rose up with. Libertarians tend, on the other hand, to be radicals, and would think little of ignoring or even eliminating the constitution, if that meant they could establish their notion of a perfect libertarian society. It would only be one person's (or a group of people's) view of liberty, however, and would ultimately open the door for the worst kind of tyranny, once all reverence for convention had been eliminated.
So conservatives want liberty within the established order (realizing that they are mutually dependant), willing only to make prudent reforms to it, while libertarians want liberty NOW, and COMPLETE, without concern for the established order, which they would not mind disposing of completely if that meant they were free to establish in its place some imagined libertarian paradise. Yes, even federalism is expendable to a libertarian, the more efficiently "liberty" can be implemented on all. After all, liberty was invented
ex nihilo by 18th and 19th Century liberal thinkers, wasn't it? We can therefore invent it anew.
Libertarianism doesn't impose anything on any person or group of persons--unless you count the Non-Aggression Principle as an "imposition." It imposes only on the government.
Libertarianism imposes something indeed. Tell the small town resident who would like to keep pornography from public news stands, or drugs off the streets, that libertarianism doesn't impose anything on anyone.
"The Constitution never applies to a person, Senator; the Constitution applies only to the government." Two points to that guy.
Well said. I agree 100%. Perhaps you are a little bit conservative, Barak.
