Is Alex Jones a Conservolibertarian?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

According to Wikipedia (with sourced references), Alex Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative. Based on what conservolibertarian appears to mean, wouldn't that make him one? I know a few people do not like the word, but isn't it rational to label someone conservolibertarian who is libertarian and conservative? What rational arguments are against it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are we talking Alex Jones the person or Alex Jones the act?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

According to Wikipedia (with sourced references), Alex Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative. Based on what conservolibertarian appears to mean, wouldn't that make him one? I know a few people do not like the word, but isn't it rational to label someone conservolibertarian who is libertarian and conservative? What rational arguments are against it?

Considering that only fascists think the term has intellectual value, do YOU think he is one?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The rational position is that Alex Jones is a conservolibertarian. It is not a fascist position. The only risk of being wrong is that as Jimmy points out, he might be acting like a conservolibertarian. When he talks about NWO, he certainly sounds like Ron Paul, also a conervolibertarian...

 

[SimpleDon]

We are all products of the age of reason, the enlightenment. We all believe in the maximum amount of personal and economic freedom possible and in a liberal democracy as the best way to achieve these freedoms. Broadly speaking in the US liberals believe that there is not enough personal freedom and too much economic freedom. Conservatives believe the opposite, that there is too much personal freedom and not enough economic freedom. Libertarians believe that there isn't enough personal freedom or enough economic freedom. Moderates are realists and know that there is at any one time the maximum amount of personal and economic freedom as is possible considering the social and economic climate at that time, that changes in these take time to implement, time to adapt to and aren't always wise or successful.

 

[SimpleDon]

According to Wikipedia (with sourced references), Alex Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative. Based on what conservolibertarian appears to mean, wouldn't that make him one? I know a few people do not like the word, but isn't it rational to label someone conservolibertarian who is libertarian and conservative? What rational arguments are against it?

Considering that only fascists think the term has intellectual value, do YOU think he is one?

I don't think that the label has any intellectual value, but I don't believe that the people who use the label are fascists or that they believe that it has any intellectual value either. They use the label to make fun of the libertarians who tend to adopt the label of being a libertarian more as meaning "not either a conservative or a liberal so I am not a part of this mess" rather than actually believing in the rather idyllic anarchism that American libertarianism is. For libertarianism to actually work would require a much larger change in basic human nature than was required for the other idyllic anarchism proposed in the 19th century, Marxism, to work and trying to implement Marxism as a social blueprint didn't work out so well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just to be clear, Alex Jones is on record saying he is a libertarian and paleoconservative. It is certainly simpler to say he is a conservolibertarian. Much like Ron Paul who consistently got 80% or better rating from American Conservative Union and was a well-respected Libertarian and Republican...another conservolibertarian. There is definitely intellectual value in a convenient label that rationally describes the thing in question. Otherwise, we're always saying libertarian and paleoconservative which is inconvenient. It's also true that many of these guys are like conservatives in libertarian clothing, framing their right-wing rhetoric in libertarian terms...though they could possibly be inauthentic. Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, etc...

Now if some libertarian socialists like Chomsky and a large contingent of the left went out and joined the Libertarian party, then there might be a greater balance in terms of persons there and they might change the ideology of the party--to include a lot of right-wing Libertarian sites like CATO...but that just hasn't happened and so we are left with a Party that is so right leaning...so much based on Old Right philosophy like Murray Rothbard's that it's absent left and taken over by kooks.

Like Alex Jones. Who the op is about.

And it would probably make sense to address his conservolibertarianism directly without all the abstract political talk.