RE: Libertarianism Might Be Irrelevant
"Libertarianism" is one way to formulate the discussion about liberty.
The method is notably confrontational and extremely dogmatic. I've noticed, through my life time, that the term shuts down conversations. I live in Utah which is an extremely oppressive state. In Utah, both conservatives and progressives shut down the debate when the word "libertarian" is spoken.
Much of the discourse about libertarianism centers on the conflict between individualism and the communitarianism. This debate makes it appear that Libertarians are driven by a desire for conflict.
I believe that there is a better way to present liberty.
I like the term "classical liberal."
I define classical liberal as the application of classical logic to the question of liberty. The classical liberal tradition is a conversation about the nature of man and governance that has been going on since antiquity.
This term allows for a more broad based discussion about liberty that has the potential to draw in the masses.
I've been working on this question for about 30 years. My parents, who campaigned for Goldwater, have been working on this problem for longer.
By using the historic technique one can not only show that liberty can solve problems. Using the historical technique, it is possible to show just how the left/right split was devised as a method to destroy liberty.
I will write a steemit post about my definition.
Just call yourself a constitutionalist instead. Most people can respect that.
I tried "constitutionalism" but it does not work. The Constitution itself is simply the articles of incorporation for the US Government. While the Constitution created a limited government, the Constitutional Convention was not meant to create the framework for society.
I actually made a very serious attempt to use "Conservatism." Every attempt to use the word "conservative" blew up in my face.
For example constitutionalism would answer the question of how we should organize the local school system because the topic is out of the scope of the Constitution.
BTW: I just finished my longer article about the definition of Classical Liberalism
Kokesh's post was specifically about science. (I really hope he is reading this reply)
The reason I brought up Classical Liberalism on this thread is because real science is part of the Classical Liberal Tradition. This is both easy to prove and is still widely known in the scientific community.
Science and technology do not make Libertarianism irrelevant. If people discussed classical liberalism; they would discover that technological developments have made the issue of liberty even more critical today than before.
Unfortunately, Libertarianism and Conservatism have adopted forms of modern logic which are counter to science. If the Libertarian Party rediscovered classical liberalism, the party would not only make itself relevant to today's technological culture, we might get to the place where Libertarian candidates start winning races.
The definition that I use for classical liberalism is actually a nice starting place for a discussion of logic. This definition can lead directly into the development of science.
[Deleted]
Mormonism was created in the same decade that King William IV launched the conservative movement.
Mormon Conservatism is in many ways closer to the original vision that Sir Robert Peel had when he created the Conservative Party than any of the other Conservative movements in the U.S.