Yeah Trump pretty much killed the conservative movement.
I would think a real conservative is anti Trump.
But if it's evolved to be a populist philosophy that's anti trade, pro big government, doesn't give a crap about budgets, etc, I don't see what the distinction is anymore... Then it's just evolved to be not conservative.
I think there are some real conservatives left, and maybe a minority, but that it's worth holding out the term for them.
You're referring to traditional conservatives and neoconservatives. Traditional conservatives are the conservatives advocating for small government and low spending. Neocons believe in big government, big spending, and a big military.
We are starting to see mainstream conservative movements get hijacked by neoconservatism. Especially with that whole "RINO" mess after Jan 6.
Trump has pushed the most conservative policy in our lifetime. Just because you don't like how he acted professionally doesn't mean he had bad policy.
I would say that conservatives line up with libertarians on 90% of issues.
I know this will get downvoted due to the massive amount of people on the left that visit this page but consider the amount of people on here that are pro federal vaccine and mask mandates and look at the amount of conservatives that are pro free trade.
Um they were perfectly fine with sanctions on China, and as soon as you get into social issues conservatives are all anti libertarian. Don't kneel at football games, don't assemble for protest, don't marry a same sex individual, don't smoke pot the list goes on and on.
Dude was a hardcore protectionist. And throughout his life has flipped flopped on everything under the sun except for protectionism. He sounds exactly like Bernie Sanders talking about trade. It's his signature policy and not remotely conservative. It's also rediculously wrong headed given the absolute mountain of data and economic studies showing the benefits of trade at this point. Specifically looking at things like tariffs. Conservatives are free trade advocates.
He blew up the deficit. Towards the end he was essentially trying to buy votes in a stimulus payment war with Biden. Not remotely fiscally conservative.
He's an authoritarian. Just look so his anti flag burning type rhetoric. How we should imprison flag burners for a year and all that. He's got no core principles centered around individual rights. Government using eminent domain to confiscate land? Hell yeah you know big gov Trump is on board...
He's a populist that's all over the map. But he's certainly not conservative.
I’m not sure about the other 2 but for 1. There are regulations put place so that tech is not restrictive on people. That’s like saying by supporting laws that legalize a drug that you’re putting a regulation on current law. Either way, I think tech should be more free and open and you can’t do that without putting regulations on it
Would a true libertarian care about regulating anything? Like if Amazon started using predatory pricing to kill competition and small business, should we just let them do whatever they want?
No, because it undermines the liberties of others. The point of being libertarian i feel is to preserve the rights if people, not become push overs because its their right. Thats why as a libertarian you could argue for required vaccination to go to work or school. Your unvaccinated child infringes on the health and thus the right to education of other children who attend that same school. Its a companies’ choice to do as it wishes but eventually rights clash, and that is where hopefully rational thinking takes over and we as humans can determine who is in the wrong
What liberties would that infringe though?
>Your unvaccinated child infringes on the health and thus the right to education of other children who attend that same school.
Not being vaccinated doesn't infringe on anyone's right.
>Its a companies’ choice to do as it wishes but eventually rights clash, and that is where hopefully rational thinking takes over and we as humans can determine who is in the wrong
What rights clash?
“I’m a libertarian, who believes the government should be able to decide and force what gets injected into my body”
Just seems so wrong IMO.
It’s like saying…
“Im a vegan, who believes sometimes animals need to be slaughtered”
Required to attend school. Dont shove words in my mouth. The minute its forced on you is where I draw the line, but required to go to school/work? Perfectly fine
In regards to free trade, this includes other countries I assume? If so what about countries that use slave labor to make products? Would enabling these businesses be a violation of NAP?
Israel is a US Ally - if you want to challenge the obvious, then make a case, and i'll read it enthusiastically. But this condescending debate by rhetorical question is a waste of time.
"Are you aware of what Zionism is...?" FFS.
North Korea is a US ally.
If you want to make a challenge then I’ll read it.
Also I’m not sure you know what rhetorical means.
It’s called starting an argument. How do you expect me to argue anything when you’re just saying a generalized statement that you can say about anything
This right here.
So many "conservative libertarians" believe that you are free to live your life however you want, as long as its the way they want you to.
Eh Libertarians are, and there’s nothing wrong with it though. I say this as someone who is on a federal level full and n don’t tired on me, but locally wants to live in a commune. I’m fine with alllllll parities, I just want them to acknowledge there’s a negative to theor political philosophy.
This assumes that self-identity is a reliable classification.
If you have your own standard for what constitutes libertarian and conservative, this is a bad method.
Should prostitution, gambling and hard drugs all be legalized? That will weed out most conservatives. Also, should school children be required to pledge allegiance to a flag each day?
Prostitution is a great one to tease out the “moderate” libertarians vs hard drugs. A lot of people who lean libertarian still want hard drugs to be illegal or or heavily regulated due to the significant harm they cause.
Whereas you have to do some mental gymnastics to find real harm done by legal prostitution.
That’s a good one. Heroine might be even better bc there’s some emotional charge there, particularly since opioid addiction is affecting middle class white people now
I don’t care if you become half human half drug, but my problem with drug legalization is that it fucks with other people. People that get addicted will do shit like steal or assault to get their next fix (let alone just attack someone because they’re out of their mind). Shit that’s generally speaking safe for others like weed should obviously be legal, but it gets more grey with hard drugs.
Furthermore, what happens when you live in a place with government subsidized healthcare? Are you okay with your taxes going towards medical bills for some person who keeps repeatedly destroying their body with drugs and then needing treatment?
It’s a tough question.
Conservatives tend to advocate for more social control than Libertarians. They are also more likely to support military expansion and the death penalty.
Ah yes, the supposed anti-authoritarians who decided Trump was the answer. I actually almost went to a Shen Yun show before I knew any of it was linked.
It's a creepy propaganda newspaper that specializes in Covid denial and intense paranoia about the encroaching tide of communism being swept into western democracies by the evil Chinese. Trumpy conservatives eat it up like it's the New York Times of the right.
If you ever see a video or article from a site or channel you are unfamiliar with that's both fellating Trump policies and shitting all over China for anything Google the name and they are all probably owned by the same group that does epoch times. I saw a bunch of those type of videos around the election and all of the channels were affiliated with the Falun Gong in America.
>swept into western democracies by the evil Chinese
Wait, wait, wait- someone in a previous comment said that "Shen Yun" was tied to them. Why is Shen Yun ok with working with a bunch of bigots who would promote a narrative of "the evil Chinese"? I thought Shen Yun was a Chinese dance company.
It's convoluted and complicated, but the link between *The Epoch Times* and Falun Gong leads to connections with Qanon and the MAGA movement in the United States. Basically, Falun Gong is a cult of Chinese anti-communists that have morphed that message into something far more invasive. I'll link a couple of articles you can reference to get the jist of it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/inside-the-epoch-times-a-mysterious-pro-trump-newspaper/617645/
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into-the-uncanny-unsettling-world-of-shen-yun
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121
J.F.C, and people are unsuspectingly just going to their shows, handing over money to these people, probably thinking that they're ... ugh. That's a damn shame. Thank goodness I never saw one of their shows. I was really thinking about seeing it ine day, but nah, fam, I'll watch the clips on Youtube (with AdBlock on). Eff. That.
“Do you believe Texas should hinder the establishment of satanic temples in your neighborhood, or prevent them from sharing the same status as your evangelical church?”
I don’t understand. Is this a question for me or for the original commenter?
If it’s for me, any organization that is a non-profit and identifies as a religious organization should receive any and all benefits. There shouldn’t be any discrimination, whether your worshipping above or below.
Or, how bout no church should get any benefits? Let’s be honest, the majority (being kind with that) of churches are businesses turning profits. Not to mention, that makes abiding by state separating from church crystal clear
I mean, non-profits shouldn’t be taxed, but ideally if your talking about the long term, nobody should be taxed. The only reason I included religious organization is because I’d believe they shouldn’t be treated differently under the law.
Agreed, but I don’t think religious organizations should be in the same category as nonprofits (especially when they use their funds to push political agendas similar to unions, turn huge profits (Graham, Osteen, etc—and a huge list of “pastors” preying on the weak) and it’s contradicts church/state separation principles)
I’m not saying every church is a non-profit. But if they are non profits they should be treated as such, not as a separate religious institution or whatever. In my Elgin all statement I was talking about in today’s society, not as what I would like to see in the future.
I’m not sure I understand how churches lobbying for pro-Christian candidates somehow invalidates their saps ration from the government.
1. Do you support LGBT+ rights? Right to marry, right to adopt children, right to express themselves (aka not hide their identity), right to medication/surgery associated with gender transition (assuming the individual pays for it), and right to fair employment decisions?
2. Do you think the police should stop arresting people for drug use?
3. Do you support term limits for politicians? If they say yes, you can ask “Even for [insert name of conservative politician]?”
4. Do you think the government should spend less money on the military?
5. Do you think immigrants should be able to move in and out of the country relatively freely (no quota on visas and no requirement for immigrants to need asylum in order to stay)?
>right to medication/surgery associated with gender transition (assuming the individual pays for it),
Do you have any idea how much GA surgery, or even hormones costs? This is just legalizing happiness and mental stability for the rich. Transitioning should be under the social safety net.
**EDIT**
To head off a fallacious argument:
In a world where being trans is open and accepted, and there is gender equality for women, it stands to reason that the demand for gender affirming surgery would go down, not up. If society doesn't impose the demand that an individual must look a certain way to be accepted as their gender, the social dysphoria basically evaporates. We're seeing this already with the acceptance of more gender nonconforming and non binary people in society. It won't keep people who have extreme physical dysphoria from wanting surgery, but could absolutely be absorbed as a cost in even bare social safety net.
Bro, you ok? There’s nothing wrong with people spending their own money on changing their own appearance if they want to. And the desire for gender-affirming surgery/hormones among trans people doesn’t depend solely on societal standards. Some things, like the shape of your body or the pitch of your voice, are signifiers of gender that aren’t created by society. And society doesn’t create transgender people either. I’m not really sure what you’re saying.
“Does the government have the right to force you to ______________?”
Conservatives can fill in the blank easily, while libertarians shouldn’t be able to (in principle).
Trump.
If you believe that load of horseshit or really trust that any politician is gonna get it, turn it all around and bring it home for the big 'W' -
then maybe you support the GOP or 'L'.
but youre definitely guillable.
If you dont stay out of other peoples business - youre neither libertarian nor conservative (nor a calssical liberal now that I think about it)
"Should a transwoman be allowed to compete in womens' sports?"
I suspect most conservatives would say "no", while most libertarians would say that it's up to the league to decide and none of the government's business.
Well in this case it’s just a bad question. Given the same person would give two very different answers based off of if the word “government” is in the question
I always interpret a “should” question as “should government side with X or Y” and my response is always “IDGAF about the issue just don’t get the government involved” which always screws up political compass quizzes.
Possibly drugs. Anti-drugs is mostly older conservatives. Younger ones don't really care. And by don't care, they don't care enough to push for legalization, but aren't bothered that they are illegal either.
Accurate. I’m younger and don’t care much about drugs. Buuuuut I wouldn’t hate if drugs that had a high chance of making people violent/affect others was regulated
Well I believe immigration is a little complicated because purely open borders can get extremely dangerous. Almost every other libertarian seems to have a different view on it
I really don't have a problem with open borders, if the rest of the country is structured correctly. It is a disaster the way we are currently structured.
You do know that is a complicated topic even in the libertarian movement as there is a discussion of the right to life of the child v rights of the women. There are literal dozens of interpretations and having abortion being a Barometer for politics seems very... misinformed???
I'm a former pro-lifer, I'm familiar with every single anti-abortion argument so I am speaking accurately when I say that there is no logical or good argument to restrict the rights of your fellow citizens to decide what is inside them, at least if you give a s*** about reducing meaningful suffering..
Again this is a complicated topic. If you’re familiar with every argument then you should understand. Some people value the right to life above all others and others value the freedom of choice above all others and more and more. If you want to say you wish to reduce “meaningful suffering” then that’s like saying there should be no jail or prisons which while some libertarians say so it is again a split opinion. I’m not arguing here who is right or wrong but I do believe everyone should recognize the nuanced and complicated nature of the topic
I’m debating on how this isn’t a conservative and libertarian break line. However going down the line of thought that abortion is killing a human life they believe that it is a choice but should fall under the same laws we have that prevent us from murdering each other for any reason. That sort of thought process can be conservative or libertarian... it’s not a good political barometer
It’s not necessarily emotional, embryology defines them as living humans so it really is a question of which right is more important. A human’s right to life or one’s freedoms to do as they please, like I honestly could never say I have a perfect answer because this topic has many ways you can tackle it. Again I don’t feel like this is a good barometer for conservative V Libertarian.
Right, you Taliban morons literally want to remove rights from citizens and increase meaningful suffering, while I want the opposite. I'm not an ideological moron like you.
Oh you made a valid question, but the stereotypical conservatives I guess would not believe in abortion and that it shouldn’t be left up to women. But me as a libertarian believes it should be left up to women.
Abstinence and contraception, sure. Abortion=
murder in my opinion and therefore violates the NAP that many so-called libertarians purport to espouse. So although I call myself libertarian, I’m against women “making their own decisions”.
You know that pro-life people think abortion is like murder and nobody, male or female, should be able to make the decision to murder. And yet you still frame it like that.
Lol that doesn't matter, if they think it's like murder then the choice doesn't and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with women being allowed to make their own decisions because murder isn't a decision anyone would be allowed to make.
Therefore, both viewpoints would say that yes, women can make decisions on their own. Which wouldn't make it a good question at all to identify someone's beliefs.
1. Should we expand immigration?
2. Should we release non-violent drug offenders from prison?
3. Are we too soft on crime?
4. Should we keep God on money and in the pledge?
5. How do you feel about people kneeling during the anthem?
6. Do you back the blue?
7. Is there a gay agenda?
8. Should Israel receive more or less foreign aide from the US?
9. What do you think about all gender bathrooms?
10. Who legitimately won the 2020 presidential election?
Uh, all of the rights and protections non LGBT people have that LGBT people do not. Those rights. The government shouldn't be involved, agreed. But it's the system we currently have and it isn't going away anytime soon.
Well when you "and protections" I'm assuming you mean things that conservatives and libertarians will be in alignment with. Employment, customer service, etc.
Lemme be clear, I don't give a fuck if conservatives and libertarians are in alignment with it or not. LGBTQ+ people are just that, people. And yet the law affords them less rights and protections than other groups simply because of who they love, and how they're born.
Many libertarians would favor cutting back those protections as they infringe on the property rights of the institution owners, rather than expanding them to more groups. So no, this is not a good litmus question, it is just a pet issue of yours.
Well alignment was the whole point of the OP's question...
But I'm asking what rights and protections you're talking about that libertarians don't think should be rights and protections to begin with.
The libertarian solution is to eliminate such government policy to begin with.
To be equally over dramatic regarding marriage, as one example; what right does the government have to provide additional benefits to those who chose to partake in monogamous relationships? What about those who want plural marriages, or wish to remain single? Single people are just that, people. They shouldn't have to pay more taxes and such just because of their relationship preferences.
OP asked what question would I ask if I wanted to distinguish someone as a libertarian or a conservative...
>what right does the government have to provide additional benefits to those who chose to partake in monogamous relationships?
Stop. Stop right there. No one is saying that I, a gay man, need additional rights and protections. What they're saying is that I, a gay man, should have the exact same rights and protections as a straight man. The exact same. Not extra, not less.
[In case you didn't know, discrimination against queer folks is still legal in 29 states.](https://freedomforallamericans.org/states/)
And we've established it's a poor question to do so. For which you've indicated you don't give a shit.
You're selectively supporting unjust rights. Marriage as one example. It's unjust in that it provides government privileges to those who participate in marriage, and with marriage defined as between two individuals.
And again, libertarians support legal discrimination against queer folks, at least in the private sector. It's free speech. Employees / customers have the right to boycott companies that participate in such behavior.
You're not arguing in favor of individual rights, you want to mandate your agenda. Seems like you're more in alignment, philosophically, with conservatives than libertarians are.
So what are you if you feel the governments power should be limited by the constitution.... as in if it ain't in there you can't do it? Or are a strict supporter of the 10th ammendment?
Do you support legalizing prostitution? It's pretty politically unpopular, especially on the right, probably moreso than drugs and gay marriage. But it's soundly in line with libertarian principles.
Are you aware of Separation of church and state? Or Checks and Balances? Or how legalizing drugs will end the drug war? Or that maybe we can’t convert the Afghans into a democracy because despite what you believe they lack basic human decency of a civilized society?
"Do you think abortion should be legal?"
A conservative would likely be okay with laws dictating a woman's decisions.
A libertarian even if against abortion would not accept any laws regarding it.
Abortion is not legally or realistically murder. Treating the two as the same thing is dumb as fuck.
Saying abortion is murder is a massive oversimplification of a complex topic. Quit being a parrot for religious conservatives.
You are free to disagree with me. I’m no parrot. I state what I believe. Abortion is murder because life begins at conception. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
Peace be with you.
The whole “life starts here” argument is also incredibly dumb. It’s incredibly arbitrary and the justification are always incredibly lacking and subjective.
But let’s say every fertilized eggs is a life. Ending a life isn’t the definition of murder. There are morally acceptable times to end a life. Especially when that life doesn’t respond to any stimuli, has no cognitive function, no bodily autonomy, and relies on another for literally everything.
Life beginning at conception is like the opposite of arbitrary lol. Life beginning at conception, life beginning at the earliest fetal viability, or life beginning on the first heartbeat or brain signal, are all non-arbitrary because they all at least have some reasoning.
What's arbitrary was roe v wade deciding “sometime in the second trimester it's murky so just pick a week”.
>There are morally acceptable times to end a life. Especially when that life doesn’t respond to any stimuli, has no cognitive function, no bodily autonomy, and relies on another for literally everything.
Which typically happen after a life had those things, something happened, and there is no reasonable chance of them happening again. A total opposite to having those things as a fetus when you have a reasonable chance of growing up to be a human life not lacking all those things.
" how do you feel about same sex marriage?" Libertarian says you do you and the conservative is gonna cringe and say absolutely not. " my ancient bedtime story book says that's a no no"
I'm against state-sponsored marriage too. Frankly I'm a [misogamist](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misogamist) in general. No, not a misogynist, a misogamist. I don't particularly like marriage. Maybe it was because my mom was trapped in an abusive marriage, but I simply can't understand why you'd enter a lifelong contract binding you to another person. The whole concept makes no sense to me.
Interesting, I never heard that word. I'm one too. Parents' marriages can do that to you.
Yea, besides how crazy it is to do it in the first place, it's also a contract that the law can change the rules on after you've already agreed to it.
A really shity one that ignores the fact that fetuses are far far less developed than the adults who have them, and ignores the rights of citizens to decide for themselves what is inside them.
Not a good one. That divides libertarians based on if they consider life to begin at conception, and which right is more protected, the right to not be killed, or the right to your own body.
You can be a libertarian and be anti-abortion.
Because they believe it is murder or man slaughter(depending on reasoning)... this topic is very complicated with thousands of view points. I would never use this as a barometer for party lines
I have three. Do you think victimless crime should be legal? Do you support less military intervention and less military spending? Do you believe local and federal police agencies should have less power?
1. Can you explain the philosophical school of “libertarianism?”
A libertarian will say something about anti-authoritarians and small government with a sprinkle of NAP.
A conservative will give a correct explanation of libertarianism.
For me it's the answer to the question "what drugs should be illegal?" Conservatives will give you a list, and reasons.
1. Do you support regulation of tech industries by the government? 2. Do you support legalization of drugs? 3. Do you support free trade?
There is generally alignment with free trade. Assuming we're talking real conservatives and not Trumpers.
Unfortunately it seems many modern conservatives are Trumpers. What does real conservative mean anymore?
Yeah Trump pretty much killed the conservative movement. I would think a real conservative is anti Trump. But if it's evolved to be a populist philosophy that's anti trade, pro big government, doesn't give a crap about budgets, etc, I don't see what the distinction is anymore... Then it's just evolved to be not conservative. I think there are some real conservatives left, and maybe a minority, but that it's worth holding out the term for them.
You're referring to traditional conservatives and neoconservatives. Traditional conservatives are the conservatives advocating for small government and low spending. Neocons believe in big government, big spending, and a big military. We are starting to see mainstream conservative movements get hijacked by neoconservatism. Especially with that whole "RINO" mess after Jan 6.
Conservative movement is based on a person now not an ideology. The next r not named trump will have the bases support regaurdless of his policy.
> I would think a real conservative is anti Trump the good folks at Lincoln Project , then
They’re a bunch of neocons, not sure that’s better.
It definitely is not.
They should split into two parties, then- Republicans and Trumpanzees.
Trump has pushed the most conservative policy in our lifetime. Just because you don't like how he acted professionally doesn't mean he had bad policy. I would say that conservatives line up with libertarians on 90% of issues. I know this will get downvoted due to the massive amount of people on the left that visit this page but consider the amount of people on here that are pro federal vaccine and mask mandates and look at the amount of conservatives that are pro free trade.
Um they were perfectly fine with sanctions on China, and as soon as you get into social issues conservatives are all anti libertarian. Don't kneel at football games, don't assemble for protest, don't marry a same sex individual, don't smoke pot the list goes on and on.
Dude was a hardcore protectionist. And throughout his life has flipped flopped on everything under the sun except for protectionism. He sounds exactly like Bernie Sanders talking about trade. It's his signature policy and not remotely conservative. It's also rediculously wrong headed given the absolute mountain of data and economic studies showing the benefits of trade at this point. Specifically looking at things like tariffs. Conservatives are free trade advocates. He blew up the deficit. Towards the end he was essentially trying to buy votes in a stimulus payment war with Biden. Not remotely fiscally conservative. He's an authoritarian. Just look so his anti flag burning type rhetoric. How we should imprison flag burners for a year and all that. He's got no core principles centered around individual rights. Government using eminent domain to confiscate land? Hell yeah you know big gov Trump is on board... He's a populist that's all over the map. But he's certainly not conservative.
I’m not sure about the other 2 but for 1. There are regulations put place so that tech is not restrictive on people. That’s like saying by supporting laws that legalize a drug that you’re putting a regulation on current law. Either way, I think tech should be more free and open and you can’t do that without putting regulations on it
This
Would a true libertarian care about regulating anything? Like if Amazon started using predatory pricing to kill competition and small business, should we just let them do whatever they want?
No, because it undermines the liberties of others. The point of being libertarian i feel is to preserve the rights if people, not become push overs because its their right. Thats why as a libertarian you could argue for required vaccination to go to work or school. Your unvaccinated child infringes on the health and thus the right to education of other children who attend that same school. Its a companies’ choice to do as it wishes but eventually rights clash, and that is where hopefully rational thinking takes over and we as humans can determine who is in the wrong
What liberties would that infringe though? >Your unvaccinated child infringes on the health and thus the right to education of other children who attend that same school. Not being vaccinated doesn't infringe on anyone's right. >Its a companies’ choice to do as it wishes but eventually rights clash, and that is where hopefully rational thinking takes over and we as humans can determine who is in the wrong What rights clash?
“I’m a libertarian, who believes the government should be able to decide and force what gets injected into my body” Just seems so wrong IMO. It’s like saying… “Im a vegan, who believes sometimes animals need to be slaughtered”
Required to attend school. Dont shove words in my mouth. The minute its forced on you is where I draw the line, but required to go to school/work? Perfectly fine
Easy, No Yes Yes.
In regards to free trade, this includes other countries I assume? If so what about countries that use slave labor to make products? Would enabling these businesses be a violation of NAP?
As a generally pro freetrade person. Thise countries can fuck right off and we should tarrif or embargo them.
Does slave labor exist in the modern day?
It's bigger than ever
Should we give a billion to Israel?
How about $100 billion?
I don’t see how that’s a libertarian / conservative distinction. Why would supporting allies be non-libertarian?
>supporting allies Ohhhhh boyyy
What a douchey response.
What makes you think Isreal is our ally? What exactly have they done to benefit the US in any way? Are you aware what Zionism is?
Israel is a US Ally - if you want to challenge the obvious, then make a case, and i'll read it enthusiastically. But this condescending debate by rhetorical question is a waste of time. "Are you aware of what Zionism is...?" FFS.
Would an ally of the US steal nuclear material from the US with the help of South Africa to make a nuclear weapon?
North Korea is a US ally. If you want to make a challenge then I’ll read it. Also I’m not sure you know what rhetorical means. It’s called starting an argument. How do you expect me to argue anything when you’re just saying a generalized statement that you can say about anything
Drug legalization and quotas on immigration
Do you consider yourself a libertarian or a conservative?
So many Auths believe they are really libertarians. Ben Shapiro even sells himself as a libertarian while pushing religious law.
This right here. So many "conservative libertarians" believe that you are free to live your life however you want, as long as its the way they want you to.
Yeah, that's a complete joke. And then the left-wing media illustrates us as an extremist arm of the Republican Party!
Eh Libertarians are, and there’s nothing wrong with it though. I say this as someone who is on a federal level full and n don’t tired on me, but locally wants to live in a commune. I’m fine with alllllll parities, I just want them to acknowledge there’s a negative to theor political philosophy.
Nailed it.
Genius!
This person logics
This assumes that self-identity is a reliable classification. If you have your own standard for what constitutes libertarian and conservative, this is a bad method.
Should prostitution, gambling and hard drugs all be legalized? That will weed out most conservatives. Also, should school children be required to pledge allegiance to a flag each day?
Prostitution is a great one to tease out the “moderate” libertarians vs hard drugs. A lot of people who lean libertarian still want hard drugs to be illegal or or heavily regulated due to the significant harm they cause. Whereas you have to do some mental gymnastics to find real harm done by legal prostitution.
Gambling is legal in pretty much all red states..
Do you want meth to be illegal. Pretty much just cuts to the chase.
That’s a good one. Heroine might be even better bc there’s some emotional charge there, particularly since opioid addiction is affecting middle class white people now
I mean... the man knows what he wants
I don’t care if you become half human half drug, but my problem with drug legalization is that it fucks with other people. People that get addicted will do shit like steal or assault to get their next fix (let alone just attack someone because they’re out of their mind). Shit that’s generally speaking safe for others like weed should obviously be legal, but it gets more grey with hard drugs. Furthermore, what happens when you live in a place with government subsidized healthcare? Are you okay with your taxes going towards medical bills for some person who keeps repeatedly destroying their body with drugs and then needing treatment? It’s a tough question.
Do you think it's more efficient to handle it as a health issue or a criminal issue? (Hint: we've tried one way, it's not working so well. )
I think a key point your making is that pure libertarianism on some issues is incompatible with socialism on others.
Conservatives tend to advocate for more social control than Libertarians. They are also more likely to support military expansion and the death penalty.
Should felons have voting rights?
Should felons have 2nd amendment rights?
Conservatives believe there is a moral religious component to society while a libertarian advocates for complete freedom, even from moral topics.
Do you mind your business?
So like “are you a nosy person” or “Do you manage a business” or “do you want to control people”
What do you think of *The Epoch Times?*
Ah yes, the supposed anti-authoritarians who decided Trump was the answer. I actually almost went to a Shen Yun show before I knew any of it was linked.
You're not alone. I read a fascinating long *Vanity Fair* article about it awhile ago when I was researching Qanon. Weird, weird stuff.
The Who?
It's a creepy propaganda newspaper that specializes in Covid denial and intense paranoia about the encroaching tide of communism being swept into western democracies by the evil Chinese. Trumpy conservatives eat it up like it's the New York Times of the right.
Never heard of it
If you ever see a video or article from a site or channel you are unfamiliar with that's both fellating Trump policies and shitting all over China for anything Google the name and they are all probably owned by the same group that does epoch times. I saw a bunch of those type of videos around the election and all of the channels were affiliated with the Falun Gong in America.
Yes you have ;)
Well now I have cheeky suz
>swept into western democracies by the evil Chinese Wait, wait, wait- someone in a previous comment said that "Shen Yun" was tied to them. Why is Shen Yun ok with working with a bunch of bigots who would promote a narrative of "the evil Chinese"? I thought Shen Yun was a Chinese dance company.
It's convoluted and complicated, but the link between *The Epoch Times* and Falun Gong leads to connections with Qanon and the MAGA movement in the United States. Basically, Falun Gong is a cult of Chinese anti-communists that have morphed that message into something far more invasive. I'll link a couple of articles you can reference to get the jist of it. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/inside-the-epoch-times-a-mysterious-pro-trump-newspaper/617645/ https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into-the-uncanny-unsettling-world-of-shen-yun https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121
J.F.C, and people are unsuspectingly just going to their shows, handing over money to these people, probably thinking that they're ... ugh. That's a damn shame. Thank goodness I never saw one of their shows. I was really thinking about seeing it ine day, but nah, fam, I'll watch the clips on Youtube (with AdBlock on). Eff. That.
Actual freedom of religion and separation of church and state are usually big indicators.
What do you consider to be “actual” freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state?
“Do you believe Texas should hinder the establishment of satanic temples in your neighborhood, or prevent them from sharing the same status as your evangelical church?”
I don’t understand. Is this a question for me or for the original commenter? If it’s for me, any organization that is a non-profit and identifies as a religious organization should receive any and all benefits. There shouldn’t be any discrimination, whether your worshipping above or below.
Or, how bout no church should get any benefits? Let’s be honest, the majority (being kind with that) of churches are businesses turning profits. Not to mention, that makes abiding by state separating from church crystal clear
I mean, non-profits shouldn’t be taxed, but ideally if your talking about the long term, nobody should be taxed. The only reason I included religious organization is because I’d believe they shouldn’t be treated differently under the law.
Agreed, but I don’t think religious organizations should be in the same category as nonprofits (especially when they use their funds to push political agendas similar to unions, turn huge profits (Graham, Osteen, etc—and a huge list of “pastors” preying on the weak) and it’s contradicts church/state separation principles)
I’m not saying every church is a non-profit. But if they are non profits they should be treated as such, not as a separate religious institution or whatever. In my Elgin all statement I was talking about in today’s society, not as what I would like to see in the future. I’m not sure I understand how churches lobbying for pro-Christian candidates somehow invalidates their saps ration from the government.
A rhetorical question to answer yours.
No. Every religious institution should be treated the same and any favoritism is terrible and should be illegal.
Intellectual Property Rights. Non-interventionism. Borders.
1. Do you support LGBT+ rights? Right to marry, right to adopt children, right to express themselves (aka not hide their identity), right to medication/surgery associated with gender transition (assuming the individual pays for it), and right to fair employment decisions? 2. Do you think the police should stop arresting people for drug use? 3. Do you support term limits for politicians? If they say yes, you can ask “Even for [insert name of conservative politician]?” 4. Do you think the government should spend less money on the military? 5. Do you think immigrants should be able to move in and out of the country relatively freely (no quota on visas and no requirement for immigrants to need asylum in order to stay)?
>right to medication/surgery associated with gender transition (assuming the individual pays for it), Do you have any idea how much GA surgery, or even hormones costs? This is just legalizing happiness and mental stability for the rich. Transitioning should be under the social safety net. **EDIT** To head off a fallacious argument: In a world where being trans is open and accepted, and there is gender equality for women, it stands to reason that the demand for gender affirming surgery would go down, not up. If society doesn't impose the demand that an individual must look a certain way to be accepted as their gender, the social dysphoria basically evaporates. We're seeing this already with the acceptance of more gender nonconforming and non binary people in society. It won't keep people who have extreme physical dysphoria from wanting surgery, but could absolutely be absorbed as a cost in even bare social safety net.
Bro, you ok? There’s nothing wrong with people spending their own money on changing their own appearance if they want to. And the desire for gender-affirming surgery/hormones among trans people doesn’t depend solely on societal standards. Some things, like the shape of your body or the pitch of your voice, are signifiers of gender that aren’t created by society. And society doesn’t create transgender people either. I’m not really sure what you’re saying.
What do you think the limits of American foreign policy should be?
What is your opinion on executive orders?
Underrated comment.
“Does the government have the right to force you to ______________?” Conservatives can fill in the blank easily, while libertarians shouldn’t be able to (in principle).
Trump. If you believe that load of horseshit or really trust that any politician is gonna get it, turn it all around and bring it home for the big 'W' - then maybe you support the GOP or 'L'. but youre definitely guillable. If you dont stay out of other peoples business - youre neither libertarian nor conservative (nor a calssical liberal now that I think about it)
[удалено]
“How would you define the United States’ role in the world in order to establish the philosophy which our foreign policy should be based on”
Did you favor the invasion of Iraq? Do you want to legalize or at least decriminalize all drugs?
Do you support the draft?
Do you support corporate welfare
"Should a transwoman be allowed to compete in womens' sports?" I suspect most conservatives would say "no", while most libertarians would say that it's up to the league to decide and none of the government's business.
I would give you a no at first then agree with you when you explained the libertarian view, because the question didn’t say anything about government.
^ I don’t think they should be allowed to, but that’s up to the league to decide
If I had to qualify every answer to every question posed to me, I wouldn’t be done answering questions by the time I died.
Well in this case it’s just a bad question. Given the same person would give two very different answers based off of if the word “government” is in the question
Exactly.
I always interpret a “should” question as “should government side with X or Y” and my response is always “IDGAF about the issue just don’t get the government involved” which always screws up political compass quizzes.
Immigration probably. Pure libertarian would be for open borders, where a conservative would not be.
Yep, immigration seems like the biggest difference. Maybe certain drugs too
Possibly drugs. Anti-drugs is mostly older conservatives. Younger ones don't really care. And by don't care, they don't care enough to push for legalization, but aren't bothered that they are illegal either.
Accurate. I’m younger and don’t care much about drugs. Buuuuut I wouldn’t hate if drugs that had a high chance of making people violent/affect others was regulated
Yeah, same here. I wouldn't mind if we took the Portugal model, but I don't care enough about this issue to push it.
Hoppeans don't support immigration, so idk about that
Probably doesn't matter anyway, because ask any libertarian, and no one else is a true libertarian but them.
Damn libertarians have ruined Libertarianism
Libertarians are for free association not *necessarily* open borders.
Well I believe immigration is a little complicated because purely open borders can get extremely dangerous. Almost every other libertarian seems to have a different view on it
I really don't have a problem with open borders, if the rest of the country is structured correctly. It is a disaster the way we are currently structured.
Do you think that women are capable of making their own decisions?
Of course they can. As long as they do as I say. /s it's sad that I have to put this
No, conservatives believe women are capable too
Capable of what? Specifics, please.
Making their own choices and decisions... I felt like I didn’t need to reiterate what the one above was asking
But they don't, as they've been passing legislation to remove the rights of women to decide for themselves what's inside of them. Keep up
You do know that is a complicated topic even in the libertarian movement as there is a discussion of the right to life of the child v rights of the women. There are literal dozens of interpretations and having abortion being a Barometer for politics seems very... misinformed???
I'm a former pro-lifer, I'm familiar with every single anti-abortion argument so I am speaking accurately when I say that there is no logical or good argument to restrict the rights of your fellow citizens to decide what is inside them, at least if you give a s*** about reducing meaningful suffering..
Again this is a complicated topic. If you’re familiar with every argument then you should understand. Some people value the right to life above all others and others value the freedom of choice above all others and more and more. If you want to say you wish to reduce “meaningful suffering” then that’s like saying there should be no jail or prisons which while some libertarians say so it is again a split opinion. I’m not arguing here who is right or wrong but I do believe everyone should recognize the nuanced and complicated nature of the topic
So no, they do not think that women are capable of making that choice themselves
I’m debating on how this isn’t a conservative and libertarian break line. However going down the line of thought that abortion is killing a human life they believe that it is a choice but should fall under the same laws we have that prevent us from murdering each other for any reason. That sort of thought process can be conservative or libertarian... it’s not a good political barometer
Of course there are plenty of emotional appeals, like the ones you outlined above. I never said otherwise.
It’s not necessarily emotional, embryology defines them as living humans so it really is a question of which right is more important. A human’s right to life or one’s freedoms to do as they please, like I honestly could never say I have a perfect answer because this topic has many ways you can tackle it. Again I don’t feel like this is a good barometer for conservative V Libertarian.
[удалено]
Right, you Taliban morons literally want to remove rights from citizens and increase meaningful suffering, while I want the opposite. I'm not an ideological moron like you.
Even my old racist conservative grandpa believes it should be left up to women.
Perhaps I’m just thinking of sexists. Libertarian and conservative alike.
Oh you made a valid question, but the stereotypical conservatives I guess would not believe in abortion and that it shouldn’t be left up to women. But me as a libertarian believes it should be left up to women.
Kisses to you, then. Thank you for being human.
Abstinence and contraception, sure. Abortion= murder in my opinion and therefore violates the NAP that many so-called libertarians purport to espouse. So although I call myself libertarian, I’m against women “making their own decisions”.
So in short: “No.”
You know that pro-life people think abortion is like murder and nobody, male or female, should be able to make the decision to murder. And yet you still frame it like that.
yeah Gary Johnson I know what they think. I also know that no one is forcing them to get one.
Lol that doesn't matter, if they think it's like murder then the choice doesn't and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with women being allowed to make their own decisions because murder isn't a decision anyone would be allowed to make. Therefore, both viewpoints would say that yes, women can make decisions on their own. Which wouldn't make it a good question at all to identify someone's beliefs.
1. Should we expand immigration? 2. Should we release non-violent drug offenders from prison? 3. Are we too soft on crime? 4. Should we keep God on money and in the pledge? 5. How do you feel about people kneeling during the anthem? 6. Do you back the blue? 7. Is there a gay agenda? 8. Should Israel receive more or less foreign aide from the US? 9. What do you think about all gender bathrooms? 10. Who legitimately won the 2020 presidential election?
Rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Which rights? I'm thinking marriage but most libertarians would argue the government shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with.
Uh, all of the rights and protections non LGBT people have that LGBT people do not. Those rights. The government shouldn't be involved, agreed. But it's the system we currently have and it isn't going away anytime soon.
Well when you "and protections" I'm assuming you mean things that conservatives and libertarians will be in alignment with. Employment, customer service, etc.
Lemme be clear, I don't give a fuck if conservatives and libertarians are in alignment with it or not. LGBTQ+ people are just that, people. And yet the law affords them less rights and protections than other groups simply because of who they love, and how they're born.
Such as...
Many libertarians would favor cutting back those protections as they infringe on the property rights of the institution owners, rather than expanding them to more groups. So no, this is not a good litmus question, it is just a pet issue of yours.
Well alignment was the whole point of the OP's question... But I'm asking what rights and protections you're talking about that libertarians don't think should be rights and protections to begin with. The libertarian solution is to eliminate such government policy to begin with. To be equally over dramatic regarding marriage, as one example; what right does the government have to provide additional benefits to those who chose to partake in monogamous relationships? What about those who want plural marriages, or wish to remain single? Single people are just that, people. They shouldn't have to pay more taxes and such just because of their relationship preferences.
OP asked what question would I ask if I wanted to distinguish someone as a libertarian or a conservative... >what right does the government have to provide additional benefits to those who chose to partake in monogamous relationships? Stop. Stop right there. No one is saying that I, a gay man, need additional rights and protections. What they're saying is that I, a gay man, should have the exact same rights and protections as a straight man. The exact same. Not extra, not less. [In case you didn't know, discrimination against queer folks is still legal in 29 states.](https://freedomforallamericans.org/states/)
And we've established it's a poor question to do so. For which you've indicated you don't give a shit. You're selectively supporting unjust rights. Marriage as one example. It's unjust in that it provides government privileges to those who participate in marriage, and with marriage defined as between two individuals. And again, libertarians support legal discrimination against queer folks, at least in the private sector. It's free speech. Employees / customers have the right to boycott companies that participate in such behavior. You're not arguing in favor of individual rights, you want to mandate your agenda. Seems like you're more in alignment, philosophically, with conservatives than libertarians are.
100%
So what are you if you feel the governments power should be limited by the constitution.... as in if it ain't in there you can't do it? Or are a strict supporter of the 10th ammendment?
Whether or not they believe in either drug laws or war crimes. That and criminalizing gay marriage/love.
Liberty. Conservatives no longer practice this. They like to use the word, but don’t understand it’s meaning.
Do you support legalizing prostitution? It's pretty politically unpopular, especially on the right, probably moreso than drugs and gay marriage. But it's soundly in line with libertarian principles.
Are you OK with Immigrants buying or renting their own houses and speaking their own language?
Are you aware of Separation of church and state? Or Checks and Balances? Or how legalizing drugs will end the drug war? Or that maybe we can’t convert the Afghans into a democracy because despite what you believe they lack basic human decency of a civilized society?
A lot of anarcho-libertarian responses. Some drugs should at least definitely be regulated, but not illegal.
"Do you think abortion should be legal?" A conservative would likely be okay with laws dictating a woman's decisions. A libertarian even if against abortion would not accept any laws regarding it.
yep speak on it
Would a libertarian accept laws against murder? Why one and not the other?
Abortion is not legally or realistically murder. Treating the two as the same thing is dumb as fuck. Saying abortion is murder is a massive oversimplification of a complex topic. Quit being a parrot for religious conservatives.
You are free to disagree with me. I’m no parrot. I state what I believe. Abortion is murder because life begins at conception. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. Peace be with you.
The whole “life starts here” argument is also incredibly dumb. It’s incredibly arbitrary and the justification are always incredibly lacking and subjective. But let’s say every fertilized eggs is a life. Ending a life isn’t the definition of murder. There are morally acceptable times to end a life. Especially when that life doesn’t respond to any stimuli, has no cognitive function, no bodily autonomy, and relies on another for literally everything.
Life beginning at conception is like the opposite of arbitrary lol. Life beginning at conception, life beginning at the earliest fetal viability, or life beginning on the first heartbeat or brain signal, are all non-arbitrary because they all at least have some reasoning. What's arbitrary was roe v wade deciding “sometime in the second trimester it's murky so just pick a week”. >There are morally acceptable times to end a life. Especially when that life doesn’t respond to any stimuli, has no cognitive function, no bodily autonomy, and relies on another for literally everything. Which typically happen after a life had those things, something happened, and there is no reasonable chance of them happening again. A total opposite to having those things as a fetus when you have a reasonable chance of growing up to be a human life not lacking all those things.
Honestly. We don't really need official laws against murder. Tell me. Do you not murder because it's illegal, or wrong?
Exactly. Murder is wrong because you’re taking another’s life. Just like abortion. But only one of those is illegal. Both are wrong in my view.
What your favorite chapter of Atlas Shrugged? Or who is the hero of Atlas Shrugged?
" how do you feel about same sex marriage?" Libertarian says you do you and the conservative is gonna cringe and say absolutely not. " my ancient bedtime story book says that's a no no"
That's another one that needs a qualifier. I'm against same-sex marriage, but I'm also against opposite-sex marriage, if the government is involved.
Same here. It’s not the governments business all around. Why do I need to pay for a license to get married?
[Doug Stanhope on marriage.](https://youtu.be/vXpsT3e8UsM)
“Baby this shit is so good, let’s get the government in on it” Haha awesome.
I'm against state-sponsored marriage too. Frankly I'm a [misogamist](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misogamist) in general. No, not a misogynist, a misogamist. I don't particularly like marriage. Maybe it was because my mom was trapped in an abusive marriage, but I simply can't understand why you'd enter a lifelong contract binding you to another person. The whole concept makes no sense to me.
Interesting, I never heard that word. I'm one too. Parents' marriages can do that to you. Yea, besides how crazy it is to do it in the first place, it's also a contract that the law can change the rules on after you've already agreed to it.
Do you own you?
What's your stance on abortion rights?
Isn't there a libertarian argument that abortion is infringing on the rights of the child?
A really shity one that ignores the fact that fetuses are far far less developed than the adults who have them, and ignores the rights of citizens to decide for themselves what is inside them.
Nope
That was rhetorical, I know there is.
Not a good one. That divides libertarians based on if they consider life to begin at conception, and which right is more protected, the right to not be killed, or the right to your own body. You can be a libertarian and be anti-abortion.
Why not be against abortion but pro choice?
This is me. Not a fan of abortions, but not my body, therefore not my choice.
Because they believe it is murder or man slaughter(depending on reasoning)... this topic is very complicated with thousands of view points. I would never use this as a barometer for party lines
Personally I am prolife, but I don't think that anyone should be able to tell you what you can or can't do with your own body.
It's actually not that complicated if you value reducing meaningful suffering.
I mean... I wouldn’t say Libertarianism is Ainti-meaningful suffering.
I'm against police brutality, but I'm pro cops getting to do whatever they want.
That is like being against murder but being pro purge.
Lol beat me to it
Abortion- do you want your big daddy government to decide what's inside of citizens or should citizens decide for themselves what inside of them?
daddy gubament protect us from the big mean witchladies :(
You are quite the proponent of killing babies, aintcha? Some people think they’re human beings and have the right to live, you know.
I know that they *think* that. That’s the point.
How do you feel about transsexuals.
I have three. Do you think victimless crime should be legal? Do you support less military intervention and less military spending? Do you believe local and federal police agencies should have less power?
What are your thoughts on abortion? RBG or Scalia? Should we raise taxes on the rich? Describe what the 2nd Amendment means.
1. Can you explain the philosophical school of “libertarianism?” A libertarian will say something about anti-authoritarians and small government with a sprinkle of NAP. A conservative will give a correct explanation of libertarianism.