Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Conservatism or Libertarianism: Why are they different?

Published

on

Matt Walsh

In a recent Twitter posting from Matt Walsh from TheBlaze, he stated what he believed the core principles of conservatism are. These principles were primarily concerned with protecting marriage, the family, and human life. So I posted a question to him. Would a conservative that didn’t believe in protecting these principles be a libertarian instead?

In response, Matt Walsh stated:

Unfortunately, he never answered my question, but then I started thinking to myself. What are the differences between conservatism and libertarianism? There are so many similarities between the two political philosophies but what makes them different? They both believe in limited government and individual freedom. These beliefs guide the majority of policies these two camps espouse, but the question is, what is the fundamental foundational principles that separate these two philosophies?

Is worldview the difference?

After thinking about it. In my opinion, the difference between the two must come down to differing worldviews. You might be asking what a worldview is? A worldview is simply the lens we use to understand the world around us. It is the foundation of our thought process and determines what we believe. For instance, I once spoke at a Republican event and told the audience that if you wanted to win elections in California, you must first win the worldview argument. You have to change people’s worldview, or you will never win and have actual change.

You see worldview will determine your position on taxes, big government or limited government. It is the key to everything. If you can change a person’s worldview, you will change their position on a host of issues.

What are those differences?

I believe the differences may lie in the theological concept known as total depravity. A basic understanding of the doctrine of total depravity teaches that all human beings are morally corrupt from birth. I believe that conservatives even though they may not hold to total depravity as a theological concept, they do unknowingly hold to this view as a part of their worldview. Contrastly, a libertarians’ worldview does not hold to the moral corruption of man.

You see, libertarianism believes in limited government because they believe that government is the issue, not man. They believe that people are inherently good and the free market should be void of regulations. People will act in their self-interest, and even though some bad apples will exist, the free market will drive them out of business, and thus you will create a utopia. Libertarianism isn’t, for the most part, full board anarchism, but it is closer to anarchism than conservatism.

People are not angels

The reason they are closer to an anarchist, than conservativism, is that conservatism believes that government is a problem because men are not angels. In Federalist 51, it states:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

People are not angels. They are morally corrupt. This doesn’t mean of course that there are no noble people out there. It just means that we understand the fundamental problem with mankind. Therefore, we cannot and will not give too much power to anyone. We don’t want too much power in the hands of politicians, but at the same time, we know if we allow people and corporations to do what they want they will eventually act immorally to maximize profits and power.

Slavery is a perfect example of this. You not only had government approved slavery throughout human history, but you still have individuals today involved in slavery.

Why I’m a conservative

The reason why I’m a conservative and not a libertarian is, the simple fact that men are not angels. I agree with libertarians that we need limited government, but I also believe that a limited government needs to be strong in its enumerated powers. The Founding Fathers understood this dilemma. How do you create a government administered by men over men and at the same time keep the government in check?

That is the dilemma we as conservatives continually face. How to minimize the moral corruption of men. It is a never-ending struggle.

Conservatism doesn’t have all the answers, no one does. But the reason conservativism is different and superior to libertarianism, in my opinion, is because conservatism has a far superior worldview.

Mr. Roditis is an entrepreneur and owns several companies. He graduated from UCSD with a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations with a focus on National/International Security Studies. He's a former City Commissioner with the City of Anaheim, CA. He's a Conservative Constitutional Federalist. Follow him on Twitter @KonRoditis

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Church of England joins LGBT forces in the culture war and children are the casualties

Published

on

Church of England

Did you hear about the new set of directives released by the Church of England for schools and teachers concerning gender and gender identity?

In honor of anti-bullying week, the Church of England released an updated version of a 2014 instructional entitled “Valuing All God’s Children.” This new set of rules instructs against so-called homophobia, bi-phobia, and trans-phobia in nursery schools and primary schools.

According to church leadership, preschoolers, kindergarteners, and elementary students should be encouraged to discover their gender identity uninhibited as they “explore the possibilities of who they might be.” Specifically, children are to be taught not to “conform” to traditional male/female “stereotypes.”

Schools must “avoid labels and assumptions which deem children’s behavior irregular, abnormal or problematic just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes … Childhood has a sacred place for creative self-imagining.”

Practically speaking, the guidelines will encourage boys to wear tutus and princess tiaras while encouraging girls to wear tool belts and super hero cloaks in order to help them determine who they might be without “judgement and derision.”

While it’s tempting to dismiss this as England’s problem, the Strident Conservative has documented how the LGBT community and its declared war on Christianity and American culture has already launched similar assaults on children in America’s public schools.

Unfortunately, in America, the Rainbow Jihad has the full support of the government all the way up to the White House.

For example, Barack Obama hosted an event in April, 2016 at the White House aimed at “breaking down gender stereotypes in media and toys.” Much like the Church of England, Obama—with support from Katie Couric, the founder of the gender-neutral start-up Little Bits—promoted the idea that gender is irrelevant and that children should be free to be who they are “without limits.”

While Valerie Jarrett organized the event under the banner of promoting opportunities for girls, Obama’s track record on transgender issues made the affair very LGBT friendly.

And we shouldn’t get comfortable now that Obama is no longer president. Donald Trump—who embraced the LGBT movement at the Republican National Convention in his acceptance speech—announced back in June that his administration would prosecute schools that failed to embrace the LGBT lie concerning transgenderism.

The LGBT culture war is not just an American war. It’s a world war, and as usual, children are the casualties.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and it’s one thing they are consistent on

Published

on

The left legislates for secularism against Christianity and its one thing they are consistent on

On the surface, the left promotes a double standard regarding how business can offer services.  They support a right of the business that sides with Palestine over Israel, and the right of governments to do business with them.  On the other hand, they support laws that force business to have “birth control” in their health plan or make people provide a service to those they are uncomfortable with such as gay couples.  The libido is far more important than your convictions or conscience coupled with the left’s push for population control.

The Stream’s Rachel Alexander scratches the surface to show that what this is really about, is finishing off what famed leftist humanist John J. Dumphy called “the rotting corpse of Christianity.”  That alone makes the left consistent with their agenda and long-term goals.  Those words that Dumphy used were not out of sarcasm, they were out of hated and are a declaration of war against Christ and his body of believers.

The Left’s Hypocrisy on States Regulating Freedom of Expression of Businesses

https://stream.org/lefts-hypocrisy-on-states-regulating-freedom-of-expression-businesses/?utm_source=Newsfeed&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_term=Original+Content&utm_content=Left-11-16-2017Should businesses have a right to express their views and practice them accordingly? The left says yes — and no. They say, “It depends.” Liberals tend to say yes when the business takes a position they agree with. They say no if the business takes a viewpoint they disagree with.

In the first case, the left stands for free speech and the first amendment. In the second, the left happily uses state power to curtail the business’s freedom of expression.

There is a rise in targeting Christian businesses.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

NBC News – Having children is immoral

Published

on

Travis Rieder from NBC News recently published an article titled, “Science proves kids are bad for the Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.” Within the article, Rieder uses a derivative of moral fifteen times. As the great master swordsman Inigo Montoya, in The Princess Bride, eloquently stated, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Case in point, he states, “Humanity grew up in relatively small groups; Rules like “don’t harm others,” or “don’t steal and cheat” are easy to make sense of in a world of largely individual interactions.”

It is interesting that he uses the word “rules” and not morality to describe hurting, stealing or cheating. Why are these rules and not moral standards?

An illustration in explaining this might be helpful. I very much enjoy watching nature documentaries. My favorite ones are the ones produced by BBC Earth. I love the images and the videography and especially the British accent. I wish I had a lovely British accent. It’s so classy and makes you sound super smart, and the tone is captivating. But even with the countless number of documentaries I have seen with those intelligent sounding Brits, I have yet to hear the narrator condemn an animal for hurting, stealing, or cheating.

I have never heard the narrator say that the male bear that is trying to kill the female bear’s cubs so that he could then mate with her an immoral act. Why not? If we’re all just animals why can’t we do that? I mean, aren’t rules made to be broken. Why are you pushing your morals, I’m sorry rules on me. If rules are regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere, then by your own words hurting, stealing, and cheating are not immoral they are just rules to govern our activities in society.

Additionally, the fallacy of Rieder’s argument continues when he states that “Our moral psychology has not yet evolved to solve the problems of today.” Utilizing the logical conclusion of this statement, we would have to conclude that there are no such things as morals and morality. If morals are merely a byproduct of the collective social construct and not a set of unchangeable moral principles, then it is neither moral or immoral to destroy the planet. It’s entirely amoral; as it would be amoral to have as many children as you wanted. Morality is just rules based on what society at a particular time thinks is right or wrong.

Therefore, who are you, Travis Rieder, to tell us what is moral and immoral? If our collective psychology hasn’t yet evolved, then by logical conclusion, society has determined that having as many children as you want is moral and thus you are the immoral one telling us not to have children. It is you, that is going against the grain of society’s moral psychology.

Therefore, Mr. Rieder, you keep using the term morality, but I must say, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.