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.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

A guide to classical liberalism

Published

on

A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Published

on

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Leftists keep crying wolf: How ‘racist’ has lost all meaning

Published

on

By

Leftists keep crying wolf

The Left needs to start coming up with real arguments instead of relying on the crutch of name-calling.

Nick Kangadis , @TruthOfChicago of MRCTV makes the point that Leftist name calling has destroyed the emotional impact of certain words, leaving them without any practical debating points. Not to mention that a fair amount of time they are merely projecting their maladies on their opposition.

Does the action of being called a “racist” mean anything anymore? You’d think for being people that constantly talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are, the Left sure are hellbent on removing any weight actual racism carries, among other labels they like to arbitrarily place on people. The funny part of the whole thing is that the people who always cry racism seem to be the biggest racists.

Rules for the rational: Never substitute name-calling for a real argument

It’s one thing to frame the debate with a label or proper term, it’s quite another to simply use pejoratives without basis in fact.

We use the terms Leftist or Socialist-Left because those are the proper terms for those people. Conversely, we eschew the terms Liberal or Progressive because they are false descriptors of the Left. Some have tried to argue that the two ‘L’ words of the same length are interchangeable when that is not the case. Leftist are of collectivist bent, while Liberals are individualists.

Similarly, the vaguely defined term ‘Progressive’ runs counter to the post-modernism of the Left. The term national merely relates to or is characteristic of a nation. By the same token, the moniker ‘Liberty grabbers’ for Leftists describes their true nature in that they are no longer advocates of Liberty – despite their ongoing exploitation of the term‘Liberal’.

This is not the case with the Left, they have the unfortunate tendency to use pejoratives such as ‘Racist’, ‘Sexist’, ‘Fascist’, to excess instead of utilising real arguments. Presumably, one is supposed to be figuratively set back on their heels defending against these types of baseless allegations. The danger for the Left is these words have become a poor substitute for rational debating points, not that they ever had much of those in the first place. After all, their best argument in favour of collectivism is that it’s either never been tried before or it’s being tried everywhere.

The takeaway

A rational argument is far better than those worn out pejoratives that are usually based on information they don’t have. In most cases, one cannot know if they fit into those pejorative categories. But that never stopped the Left from using them anyway. The Left’s tactic of projecting the words ‘racist’, ’sexist’ ,’fascist’ has become both sad and amusing. Their desperation in using the follow-up tactic of circular logic in applying those words is also becoming obvious to everyone.

As those words lose their emotional impact from excessive overuse, it will become clearer to all that the Left has no real arguments in favour of it’s socialist national agenda. But most likely it’s racist, sexist or fascist to notice that.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report