The problem is that social conservatives or the social-fiscal hybrid which I call traditional conservatism and libertarians especially social liberatians can’t co-exist.
Us conservatives believe in Christian principals and right to life and traditional moral and cultural values.
But a social libertarian thinks that everybody is free to do as they please without the need for laws, problems, or consequences. They think social issues should be left up to the person to decide what to do and everyone is free to do what they want. In essence they support the leftist view of social issues in many regards.
The libertarians are on the wrong side of every social issue such as abortion, drug prohibition, homosexuality, marriage, prostitution and just about every other choice that consenting adults make with the exception of gun ownership.
Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.
Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.
Legal drugs didn't destroy our society the last time they were legal (nor has the legal drug alcohol done so), and legal prostitution hasn't destroyed Nevada.
Well maybe free to do as they please until they start infringing on another's rights.
It isn't necessarily that libertarians agree with those social issues that should be left up to individuals to police, or that there aren't consequences for some of those decisions, it's just that we dont believe in using the fed gov to do those things. Especially when the Consitution doesn't give those powers to the fed gov.
So in that vein, I believe you're right. It's fair to say that social conservatives and libertarians cant really coexist.
It's also fair to say that you support the leftist view of using the fed gov in completely anti-constitutional ways in many regards. aka, you're a progressive.
It's fair to say that while you'll pay lip service to personal responsibility, you dont actually believe in it. aka, you're a hypocrite.
And finally, it's fair to say that you probably have much more in common with democrats than actual conservatives. Aka, you're the Whig party.
So can we say that you believe that it's the proper role of DC to give sanction to or ban those activities? If so, perhaps you can show us where the constitution specifically gives the feds that power?
I should mention that there are also disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. They want to curtail the defense and have come to think of the military as a force that has caused more harm than good. They don’t value a war on terror or understand its ramifications. They do not get the Islamic threats. There is one group that is even against Israeli and any Jewish state. There is another that is very anti-war and wants to end all wars.
They think everything is a civil liberties issue or causing a police state and while some of it is understandable and true, they oppose measures of any kind to track or punish the enemy. They are heavily opposed to the military.
They support cutting defense. Now I don’t mind cutting some of the defense if not needed and fixing departments as long as it does not jeopardize security. But some libertarians want it cut as drastic as Obama or even more because war is bad to them and they see it as us being the oppressors around the world. Hence they call republican, conservatives or folks who support the military and defense as neo-cons.