Aussie Conservative Political Philosophy/ Landmark Posts · Libertarian issues · Nationalist themes

Why I’m conservative rather than libertarian

I firmly support the need to emphasize common ground, rather than differences when collaborating with individuals of differing ideologies.

So whilst constructive dialogue is important, and I consider parts of conservatism and libertarianism essential to my own ideology, I am first and foremost a conservative person.

This is not to state that I am incapable of changing my positions on issues over time, but for now I have a firmly rooted, mostly conservative set of beliefs.

But why is that?

Upon reflection, the primary reason I was drawn to conservatism, was my belief in being part of a broader collective. Yes, I favour lower taxes, private property rights, some libertarian principles, and am wary of the dangers governmental overreach can pose.

But from a young age, it wasn’t economic growth, or individualism that really grasped my fascination.

Instead, my passion for preserving our great country emerged, as well as for promoting the traditional order which developed modern Australia.

In all my travels around Australia, or when meeting Australians abroad, I sense the presence of a nationwide solidarity and patriotism. And it is this shared unity among our people which should remain key.

As an Australian, I see it as important to protect our unique culture, and my evolved views on trade and immigration reflect that. While not necessarily popular among some, it is my support for Australian values, which trumps my interest in economic matters.

For if national wealth was the ultimate means of assessing the greatness of a country, then we must consider the Middle East.

According to World Bank data, Australia’s GDP per capita is $56 000 US, while Qatar’s is $73 000.

So while we all desire strong economies, could anyone really argue that Qatar is a better country than Australia?

Open spaces, beaches, democracy, equality and basic civil freedoms are in Australia whereas Qatar has Islamic law, theocracy, beheadings and torture.

Clearly, no sane individual could argue that Qatar is a better place to live than Australia.

Because of this, I find it important to think of ourselves as being more than individuals, and more than mere citizens living in a wealthy country.

Rather, our culture, and our Australian way of life, is equally if not more important, than the economic success our nation enjoys.

I also disagree with purist notions of individualism, which is what libertarianism largely is. I object to the idea that we should have a laissez- faire approach to cultural issues, and that if groups are acting within the realms of law, that this is an acceptable scenario.

Alternatively, we should seek to uphold and actively promote certain values central to our societal framework.

For me, the mass Islamisation of Europe is evidence of the faults in accepting different behaviours, no matter how diametrically opposing to Western culture they may be.

Now to be fair, not all libertarians have excused for Radical Islam and allowed this cancer to fester.

Nevertheless, the idea of accepting mass immigration into the West and not demanding that these people quickly assimilate to certain principles, can be viewed as a libertarian idea.

This is critical as new Muslim migrants to Europe didn’t always have to directly break laws, to further their own norms, ghettos, and negative attitudes towards Western civilization.

Although we shouldn’t advocate for the state to reign down on new migrants with an iron fist, it is more reasonable to encourage assimilation into Western society, than the alternative. Which appears to be a more conservative approach to take, as opposed to a libertarian one.

While I will continue to strive for common ground with different groups, given these varying factors, I will generally move to promote conservative causes over libertarian causes for the foreseeable future.

8 thoughts on “Why I’m conservative rather than libertarian

  1. It seems like an absurd question, but what does “conservative” mean? Here in the U.S., the term has been stood on its head. It used to mean, half a century ago, someone who was cautious, weighed evidence, was rational, and wanted to conserve what was worth conserving — hence “conservative.” (In this sense, I’m very conservative.)

    Now, “conservative” means nothing of the sort in America. Instead, it means radical, authoritarian, religiously fanatic, with reckless disregard of logic, and reckless disregard of evidence, in short, irrationality — witness climate change denial, scapegoating and xenophobia (against Mexicans — my good neighbors), the assault on free speech, the assault on reproductive and gay rights, the assault on objective reality (yes, this is what Trump and his minions are doing). How in any real sense of the word is this conservative?

    (I agree with you that multiculturalists and other PC leftists underestimate the threat from Islamic fundamentalists, and Islamic immigration — though at the same time they underestimate the threat from Christian fundamentalists.But this is a bit beside the point.)

    The question remains: “What does ‘conservative’ actually mean?” Before we can have meaningful dialogue, we need to agree on terms.

    I’d really appreciate hearing from you about this.

    Cheers,
    Chaz

    1. Ok you’ve made many points here, so I’ll try go through them the best I can. So your argument appears to be that those claiming to be ‘conservative’ are not actually conservative in nature. This might well be a valid criticism, as some criticise conservatives of being reactionary. One such example could be ‘conservative views’ on abortion in the US, which if they enacted the policies they want, would actually be a substantial change to the abortion status quo. Alternatively, I could argue progressives to be not so progressive, considering they excuse for a backward cult called Islam which would take us back into the 7th century. We can argue over terms and labels till the cows come home both for the ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ side. However, what conservatism or other political beliefs really are, is an adherence to a certain set of principles (be they the current status quo or changes they want pursuing). A conservative won’t merely give up the fundamental beliefs they have dearly held just because abortion or immigration laws have changed and they want things back the way they once were. So perhaps calling us ‘right- wing’ or ‘nationalist’ might be more useful to you. All of that aside, I consider myself a conservative because I believe in conserving certain elements of Western society, while seeking to uphold the traditional order and beliefs (even if this means bringing about change). Although, I equally see myself as being a right- wing populist, so whichever label helps the most be free to use it. Hope this helps!

  2. Reblogged this on Defense Issues and commented:
    This would more or less apply to myself as well. In fact, Croatian conservativism has long had a social component, having developed in predominantly rural 19th century Croatia where cooperation was the key for survival. While accepting of the principles of individual independence and responsibility, Croatian conservativism also demands a high measure of social responsibility – towards one’s own family, people and the country. In Croatia, it is generally the Left who are socially irresponsible – a problem made that much worse by the fact that both major parties (SDP and HDZ) are leftist neocommunist parties deeply rooted into Titoism.

  3. The problem with Libertarianism is that it is inherently self defeating. You cannot have a utopia of small government while at the same time permitting open borders and a legalized drug epidemic. These two libertarian positions inevitably create a population opposed to limited government. Conservativism strikes the right balance between liberty and self preservation

    -Lexington
    Lexingtonpatrick.com

  4. I applaud your thoughtful and balanced view, one that would stand the test of a rational debate or discussion about culture generally, specific values, the effects of immigration on culture, and the rights of an indigenous population to self determination. Unfortunately a rational discussion is just not possible with the shrieking hordes of cultural marxists we particularly have in Europe. Those of us on the conservative side of the great divide are automatically racist, facist, misogynistic homophobes, so …….. we must accept that we are in a war, that the enemy are already amongst us, and have been amongst us before mass immigration took hold. I think we know which way this war will unfold.

    1. Thankyou for your comment. Your right, sides are so entrenched in their positions they are impossible to sway over. So to avoid further confrontation, I would hope we seek common ground to focus on similarities rather than differences.

    2. Sadly, there will be no rational debate or discussion with the people we are up against.

      Remember too, that the ‘establishment’ did not plan to be in the position they are in now, they had planned to be rolling out the next wave of cultural destruction of the West with the Hillary show and on with the EU.

      The Libertarian group are caught between ideals and reality, and they must choose. It is worth noting that Ron Paul was a flop because he couldn’t choose. Even today he still pedals ideals that are not at all a possible future and won’t pitch in where he could but instead hides behind his ideals.

Leave a Reply