Where matters go astray would be the fair number of Libertarians who are in fact libertine, on the one hand. Not all are, there are pro-life socially conservative Libertarians. But to the libertines who at times appear to predominate, they're openly hostile to any sort of social sanction or taboo pertaining to morals or behavior. This is unlike the Founders who more or less institutionalized an ability to shape the public square and acceptable behavior from the State level on down the line. Freedom of association also means not being forced to associate with those of whom you disapprove.
On the other hand, we have very ardent social conservatives who become decided champions of authoritarian heavy-handedness pertaining to certain moral issues. They don't like it or believe it to be immoral, they immediately want to bring the coercive power of the state to bear, in order to stamp it out. This is very unlike the Founders as well.
There is middle ground to be found, and the Founders exemplify it. Freedom of conscience doesn't mean just what the oddly lockstep “Free Thinkers” say it does. Freedom of association does not only apply to individuals and groups historically marginalized, it applies to all.
Thank you for your replies. Nicely balanced, and helpful in sorting all this out.
I’m happy to get other input people might have, and TIA.
What a crock, 1790 America would have had libertarians hanging from trees.
Sodom and Gomorah was full of libertarians, America wasn’t, that is a recent occurrence of the last 50 years as libertarianism swept America and has given us this destroyed culture and created an atmosphere where the Christians and God are to be weeded out of our ever more “libertarian” culture, the culture that first came to dominate in the Ghettos.
If FR had a thumbs-up feature, I would give it to your post.
The libertarian (note I use the small "l") position is to reduce government spending, subsidies, and government regulation. This reduction needs to be accomplished intelligently. For example, reducing bank regulation while maintaining deposit insurance just guarantees massive expenses to the taxpayers. Allowing welfare while not penalizing bad lifestyle choices likewise produces massive expenses to the taxpayers.
One thought experiment to illustrate the divide between social and fiscal conservatives:
Let's say you are a senator about to vote on a bill to cut back on the welfare state by barring any increase in benefits for any additional children conceived after the women starts on welfare, and limiting the lifetime number of years the woman is eligible for benefits.You are the deciding vote. If you vote yes it passes, if you vote no or abstain it doesn't pass.
Over the long term, the bill will greatly reduce welfare dependency. Over the short term, the bill will likely increase the number of abortions among welfare women.
How do you vote, yes or no?