Yeah, it's like no one at all realizes that eschewing authority over others is a virtue.

Actually, I see the whole Tea Party thing going on right now as a kind of weird, refreshing "Come to Jesus" moment for the conservatives, many of whom are suddenly realizing in droves that "it's not the social issues, stupid, it's the liberty/freedom/Constitution, stupid".

In this thought process, they should be heartily encouraged by the non-religious, philosophical libertarians, IMHO. I'm not myself particularly comfortable with all of the religious trappings of some of the events I've attended, but I understand that other people attach a deeper meaning to them than I do. If their religion is what leads them to demonstrate and work for political liberty, I'm OK with that. There are no perfect solutions, but I'll settle for good.

Deeply religious people won't give up their religious views--and if you think about it, that was kinda the point of the settlement by Europeans in North America in the first place, and that concept has a prominent place in the First Amendment.

Religion is a positive thing for most people. It moderates their behavior. It provides them with a reason to control themselves. It gives them a reason to keep going.

Religion can also be horribly abused. Like any tool, it can be used well, and it can be used poorly. People need to be taught how to use it properly. People who aren't taught properly tend to wind up waiting for comets to come and take them away to paradise, or tend to blow themselves up to get a few dozen virgins in the next life, or weird things like that.

Many, perhaps most religious-right people are I believe actually natural allies of libertarians. There are lots and lots of libertarian ideas scattered all throughout the Bible. The trick is to convince *them* that you are *their* ally. There are more of them than there are of you. That's just the reality of the situation.

It seems to me that a big problem is that libertarians have never really learned to effectively talk to the Christian Right in their own language. Too many non-religious libertarians look down their noses at religious people. It's not healthy when leftists do that, and it's especially not healthy when libertarians do it, either, because non-religious libertarians are such a very small minority even when compared to the truly leftist minority.

But if libertarians choose to actually engage the religious right, using the language of the religious right, then the non-religious libertarians could have an enormous, lasting, positive impact on what's currently happening in this country.

It's an opportunity, if it's used well.

The first step is to put out the raging, five-alarm fire that is the Obama/Pelosi/Reid disaster happening in Washington--and the other fires happening in many of the states all around the country. I'm not sure right now we can worry too much about who gets the credit for putting these fires out, as long as they get put out sooner rather than later.

The next (and perhaps concurrent) step is to try to keep the religious conservatives from swinging the pendulum right past the sweet spot of maximizing personal liberty all the way to the other extreme of religion-fueled tyranny.

I think the way to do that is to reinforce the good parts of Christianity (from a libertarian point of view) in preference and opposition to the less savory, more controlling aspects that some may find in their interpretations of the Bible.

Non-religious libertarians don't have to be passive--in fact, I don't think they can afford to be. Many libertarians have been too passive over the years with the leftists and their increasingly bizarre worldview, and look what that got us.

If we don't just want to trade one set of tyrants with another set, we will need to engage--and encourage--the kind of thinking we believe and know is the best in the long term for everyone--individual freedom and liberty.

What do you do?

You PICK A GOD-DAMNED SIDE. So what if there are social conservatives who might take away your stash? They'll leave you your livelihood and your freedom of speech.

But, if the theoretical right of gay people to "marry" is more important to you than the survival of the republic, go right ahead and side with the Administration.

Trimegistus:
"But, if the theoretical right of gay people to 'marry' is more important to you than the survival of the republic, go right ahead and side with the Administration."

Wow, Eric. When did you do a 180 and start arguing in favor of gay marriage, let alone making it some sort of qualifying test for which of the preexisting political clubs you were keen to join? I missed that development and would be very interested in seeing the relevant posts. I also missed the part where you sided with the administration, especially by voting for it and stuff. And I thought I knew you so well....

Trimegistus, I have argued against gay marriage in more posts than I can count. By making things up in your search for heresy, you more than proved my point.

I'm also intrigued by this statement:

But, if the theoretical right of gay people to "marry" is more important to you than the survival of the republic, go right ahead and side with the Administration.

Barack Obama is against gay marriage, right? So, if I thought what you say I think, I should be siding with him? What the hell is wrong with me? Why am I being so critical of the man? Can it be that I think there are more important issues facing the nation than gay marriage?

As to "PICK[ing] A GOD-DAMNED SIDE," sure. I'm on your "side." I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever is running against the left. Even if they make me want to throw up.

I thought I had made all of this clear in countless posts, but I guess not.

You've made it clear Eric, people will misinterpret you to get mad at you, it's what people do. Heck, nowhere in this post did you mention the stuff you're being attacked for.

Related to your post (with lots more cussing)
http://doubleplusundead.mee.nu/you_know_can_stupid_people_stop_screwing_things_up_for_me
and
http://doubleplusundead.mee.nu/some_friday_evening_rage.

I've disliked the Moral Majority types since the 80s.
Conservatism should be about getting the gov't to leave me alone, not imposing a religion's social agenda on me.

Whether it's Catholicism or Global Warmmongering, don't get your religion on me.

So where does that leave me?

Eric, stated the following a number of years ago at Balko's place.

Why is there such a confounded need to label yourself or align yourself within a group? Can we not just be men with like minded ideas of liberty and sovereign individuality? Even if some of your political ideologies differ in regards to the size of government, as compared to other labeled individuals, does the group label offer you any kind of safety, or is it just a need to belong that is being fulfilled by the label? The group mentality, in most instances, only provides a bludgeon to use against other groups.

Apologies. I must have confused you with someone else.

But what is your beef with the social conservatives, then? Weed? Internet porn?

I'd agree with much of filbert's response. The Tea Party movement isn't dominated by social or religious conservatives. I'd even go further and say that most of the pushback against Obama and the Democrats' egregious overreaching has nothing to do with issues that social and religious conservatives hold dear. I think it is a moment in which the Republicans--if they were a smarter party, which I have large doubts about--could use to redefine its "brand" in a way that emphasized the primacy of the constitution over traditional social conservative aims. The leftist monster has to be defeated first and foremost.

I'd also question your linking Michael Savage with Keyes and Worldnet Daily. I haven't listened to Savage in several months, but the last few times I did, I was surprised that he wasn't quite what I would have imagined from his reputation. He certainly engages in his share of homophobic vitriol, but sometimes I wonder how much of it is just a kind of rhetorical ploy. His mantra these days is "language, borders, culture," and although I'm sure I'd disagree with some of his ideas about culture, I'd agree with others.

I've taken to labeling myself as a conservative/libertarian or a classical liberal, because neither 'conservative' nor 'libertarian' is quite the fit. Personally, I guess that I'm very 'conservative' when it comes to things like sex, drugs, Christianity, and other such issues, but also don't think it is the government's place to impose constraints in those areas -- just as I have a rather Jeffersonian view concerning government interference in economic matters.

Thus, Eric, I've found myself quite compatible with your own political views: in the matter of res publica, we pretty much agree. The WND/Savage/Keyes (at least since he went crazy a decade or so ago) brand of conservatism appeals to me not a whit.

The only major political differences we have concerns abortion. That is problematic, because it gets to a non-political question: when does human life begin for an individual? If one function of government is to defend people's lives against an unjust taking, then this difference is difficult to reconcile.

But in other matters, there's little problem. Yours also remains one of my "top ten" blogs to read and to recommend: thank you for it.

What the hell is a "real" conservative? Is Steele a "real" conservative? Is Dobson? Is Limbaugh? As you say, "conservative" and "liberal" are just labels. I don't like being labeled. And, like you, I felt like I had no political home because, although my personal views are more in line with the Republicans than the Democrats, the Rs certainly don't speak for me for every issues. Sadly, the libertarians don't either - they have some good ideas, but are (in my view) rather naive when it comes to many issues. So if I have to be labelled, I call myself a "Tea Party Republican" because the Tea Party holds views pretty close to my own on the big picture and they've got me excited enough to actually start getting involved with local politics. And they have been smart enough (so far) to leave so-called social conservatism out of their platform. That doesn't mean I'm not a social conservative - I am - but I believe rather strongly that folks should be allowed to live their personal lives pretty much as they wish, so I can't bitch about your lifestyle choices if I expect you to leave me alone as well. If that makes me pro-gay-marriage and pro-personal-drug use, so be it; your living arrangements and what you and other consenting adults do in private should be no one's business but your own. Is there a label for that?

I have been in the same spot for some time. I was updating my Facebook profile the other day, I've never bothered with it much before, and when it got to the section on political philosophy I put classical liberal/libertarian. It was telling that Facebook didn't recognize classical liberal as a political category.

Trimegistus raises an issue for folks like me. I've warned libertarian leaning people before about forming strategic coalitions with both team left and team right. In my experience, the libertarians always end up seeing their cause subverted. For instance, a couple of months ago some of the libertarian posters at the Liberty and Power blog mentioned that they had teamed up with team left anti-war advocates to push for an end to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't long before the libertarian guys were feeling themselves shunted off to the side, having their essays rejected from the group's publication, etc. It ended up getting pretty ugly. Teaming up with team right also usually ends up much the same way although I do see team left as more manipulative in this regard at least historically. This doesn't seem like a secret as a lot of socialist/communist writings talk about doing just this as evidenced by Lenin's "useful idiots". In other words, they're sneaky little bastards.

The problem for classical liberal/libertarians is pretty basic. As Robert Heinlein wrote, "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

Most people are little tyrants, they want to impose their will on the world, some just choose progressive means and others choose the conservative route; probably stemming from personality factors. The few people, and I believe the numbers are small, who are self-actualized, who don't look for nor need external validation in how they live their lives are the types of people drawn to what we define as classical liberal/libertarian. We will always be a minority, we will always be political outsiders.

Rick, people who want limited gov't have the best governing document every produced: the Constitution. Too bad we don't use it anymore.

I've always thought conservatism was about limited gov't. Ronnie Raygun didn't push religion, he pushed limited gov't.

V,

I have a soft spot for Reagan too but RR's actual record on limiting government is poor despite his rhetoric (which by the way did bring back at least the idea of liberty and free markets). I offer this article by Sheldon Richman of "The Freeman" as support:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=605

My point was that he didn't go all religious.

I'm not going to argue Ronnie's conservatism, I watched him be savaged at the time by both sides so that's a debate I will never again enter.

There are more of them than there are of you. That's just the reality of the situation.

There are not enough of them and they need allies. THAT is the reality of the situation.

CBI,

So does that mean you prefer to return drugs to the status they held for hundreds of years before the failed Drug War was instituted?

Now that would be a real conservative position.

I find that most "Conservatives" follow the former Progressive line on the dug war. You know the line that got the whole mess started. So oddly enough the "Conservatives" are Progressive on the issue.

And you are aware that the marriage laws were instituted by Government to prevent race mixing. It used to be that marriage was the province of the Churches.

There are not enough of them and they need allies. THAT is the reality of the situation.

This is also true. And this is where the leverage comes from that (forgive the phrase--I cringe when I type it) "true" libertarians have over the social conservatives to . . . modify their occasional less liberty-loving impulses.

What was that old song? "Accentuate the positive . . . "

If the ideas of libertarianism are as robust as many of us think they are, they will eventually sink in, if they're presented reasonably, consistently, persuasively, and persistently.

That combination is of course exceptionally difficult to execute. Which makes the current ascendancy of leftist "progressivism" that much more impressive from a strictly tactical point of view. Because when you really look at it, progressivism is nonsense on stilts. But it sounds good to people who don't have the time or inclination to really study it objectively.

The same is of course true of most religions--at least on the popular level.

But my point #1 is that there is a strong theme of freedom and liberty running through the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, that can be tapped into, nurtured, and brought to the fore. Alliances are not static things--they must be cultivated. And as the religious right is under an obligation to proselytize, so must libertarians do the same--and the Christian Right is fertile ground for the expansion of liberty, if they are approached with the correct words and in a suitably non-threatening way. That's my major point.

Libertarians, I think, sometimes have a kind of bull-in-a-china-shop approach to discussion of issues with non-libertarians . . . we KNOW we're right, and sometimes we have insufficient patience or familiarity with the other person's position and/or beliefs, and wind up backing that other person into a corner. People backed into corners are not generally open to persuasion at that point.

(And yes, I'm actually taking myself to task for conversations I've had and regretted previously in my lifetime, in case you're wondering . . . )

M. Simon, you asked two guestions.

Concerning drugs, I'm not fully done with thinking things through, but in most cases I would support removing anti-drug laws. That doesn't mean I necessarily approve: I've never had and never plan to even try marijuana, for example. But disapproval and legal restrictions are different in kind.

Re marriage. Yes, I was aware of that. I do not believe that the state should be involved in marriage licenses. There is a state interest in marriage, but that is in the common law and mainly affects inheritance. BTW, I was argued into this position by a very conservative Lutheran (LCMS) pastor -- although he himself was unaware of the anti-miscegnation origin of marriage licenses).

Would all -- or even most -- conservatives agree with my positions here? I think that many could be persuaded to such a view on marriage, although most are not there yet. The drug position would be less likely, at least for the "hard" drugs.

There is also the problem of use by minors, which, I think, is different than the use by adults. But that is a long, long discussion in itself.

Have I answered your questions adequately? If not, please expand on them. Remember, "I've taken to labeling myself as a conservative/libertarian or a classical liberal, because neither 'conservative' nor 'libertarian' is quite the fit.