Damon Root: On the Conservative vs. Libertarian Take on the U.S. Constitution

[SparLeonidas]

I'd say that the "conservatives" that he is talking about would more accurately be called "neoconservatives." I believe that the true conservatives have much more in common with libertarians than many people realize (like Barry Goldwater). Allow me to quote Ronald Reagan: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..." (I was gonna put more of it on there, but Youtube has limited the number of characters allowed).

[TheRickyp]

I 100% whole heartedly agree with your statement. As a matter of fact, you pretty much echoed my exact words I told to a conservative the other week. Word for word. Except that I added, "and if you're argument is that marriage is a religious institution between a couple and god", then it has no place whatsoever in government to begin with. Christian conservatives (the majority of them) have this superiority complex they REALLY need to work on. They think it's a Christian nation, it is not.

[shamgar]

Almost everyone I grew up with who is a conservative supports the drug war, overseas wars, thinks the government should outlaw gay marraige, etc. They talk a lot about how small they want the government to be, and then come up with excuses for why it doesn't count when they want the state to control people. No, that's not all conservatives, but most people who call themselves conservative do think like that in my experience.

[sirellyn]

It's the libertarian position that the gov have no say on marriage. It simply doesn't govern what kind of relationships individuals have with each other. It doesn't make it bigger, it makes the existing federal marriage rule set non existent.

[blogegog]

That's what I thought. A typical libertarian would prefer to remove the marriage laws rather than add homosexuals to the list.

As a typical conservative, I'm ok with that. You can repeal pretty much any law you want to and you'll get my support. We've got too damned many of them.

[blogegog]

I didn't say Bush and Romney support limited government. I said conservatives do.

[shamgar]

Creating federal laws regarding marriage at all makes the government bigger.

[ReliableInsider]

In other words, conservatives and libertarians have diametrically opposite views of the U.S. Constitution.

It's long past time that libertarians woke up and admitted that to themselves.

[szs]

This is probably the only ReasonTV video I have ever thumbed down. What we conservatives take is an honest interpretation of the Constitution. We don't see rights where they don't exist; we don't look for some kind of invisible ink or secret meaning between the lines. The Tenth Amendment is the answer here. States with more libertarian social instincts can go and have gay marriage and polygamy if they want to.

[reefergoat]

I actually don't smoke pot, but nice ad hominem attack. I created this account back when I did. And I love how you completely dismissed any of my perfectly rational arguments without a substantive rebuttal. Given that the government is involved in marriage, denying homosexuals the right to reap the legal benefits of marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. To profess otherwise is nothing short of discrimination. Now how about an intellectual rebuttal?

[elharbingero]

What the hell is Root talking about with this "conservatives see a small island of rights" and implying that conservatives don't want to see bad laws struck down? On the latter, there aren't many fans of John Roberts style 'judicial restraint'. On the former, that's such a strawman I don't know where to begin.

There are areas of disagreement between conservatives and libertarians, but if you actually talk to conservatives (especially Tea Party members), you'll find the differences are small.

[blogegog]

Agreed. And adding yet another law to make marriage include contracts involving other than a man and a woman increases the size of government yet again. I'm surprised any libertarian supports the idea of the government recognizing gay marriage, or any marriage at all for that matter.

[blogegog]

Frankly, you're not opposed if you wish to expand the government's role in marriage. I call 'shenanigans'.

[reefergoat]

For the record, I am opposed to the government being involved in a private affair between two consenting adults such as marriage, but I am also a pragmatist, and I realize the government is not getting its hands off of marriage any time soon, so to deny homosexuals the same legal benefits of the public sector when they pay taxes to the public sector just as everybody else does violates their civil rights.

[elharbingero]

Republicans need to be held accountable for any statist policies they've enacted/endorsed. The best way to do that is in primary elections. Other than the Ron Paul campaign, I see very little effort being put in by avowed libertarians towards liberty-minded Republicans going against the establishment. Whereas, the Tea Party movement has a number of wins (and some close losses) to show for itself. A TP/Libertarian alliance could do that much more, and make the GOP actively good for a change.

[sirellyn]

If you're arguing from the bible I'll remind you of the separation of church and state. If from the idea that historically some actions produce no good results, having "no change" is also against natural law. Moreover, if man trying to fly was only folly (as it was 150 years ago) it's a good thing some still tried.

As for more rules, you strike all federal rules of personal association, which creates less government.

Slavery was also lawful until overturned.

[blogegog]

True, a lot of conservatives are in favor of the drug war. A lot aren't. And we certainly support our military, being one of the basic reasons the government exists (ie. threats foreign and domestic). But how does creating gay marriage laws affect the size of the government? Creating new laws does not limit government.

IMO we've got enough laws, and it's time to start repealing them, not create more.

[reefergoat]

Given that the government is involved in marriage (and feasibly will be for awhile), shouldn't homosexuals receive the same legal benefits that heterosexuals do? I can understand being opposed to churches sanctifying homosexual marriage, as they are private institutions, but to deny some the same legal benefits as others simply because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[JonathanG]

Right on with you there man! Actually the institution of marriage I believe shouldn't be held under government at all. On this I have my quarrels with traditionalists who typically favor a federal amendment to define traditional marriage. I also have that problem similarly with DOMA, except here it's worse cause this would be national and unilateral. Doesn't stand much a chance of passage anyway.

[raocool]

@blogegog the reason might be to claim ownership of the "true liberty movement" which is pure distortion.