LibertarianSchmoe wrote: "The problem is that everyone believes their own definition of "reasonable restraint" is justified. Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. I do believe that most, if not all, cases where liberties have been violated, the violator(s) felt justified in their actions; it was for somebody's "best interest". In my experience, all of the places where social cons and libertarians disagreed, the social cons were on the side of "restraining" liberties."
Certainly! I don't disagree, except for the part,"all of the places where social cons and libertarians disagreed." Perhaps most, but you qualify the statement by stating it's your own experience.
I'm definitely NOT saying libertarians and social conservatives agree on every issue. In fact, we definitely disagree on some things. However, if you study both positions, you'll find we agree on quite a bit. Even if our motivations differ, the end results are nearly identical.
Examples:
Abuse of Imminent Domain - a social con might say it's immoral to take someone else's property (equating it to theft). A libertarian might say it violates the owner's liberties. Result, we both fight for the right to own private property.
Taxation for Social Spending - again, a social con might say it's stealing. A libertarian might say government doesn't have the right to force you to be responsible for other citizens. Result, we both fight against taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution.
I could give many more examples on very important issues where social cons and libertarians agree. Disagreements between us should be resolved WITHIN the party that most represents us, the Republicans.
I completely agree.
But since the mid Nineties, it appears that building consensus has been supplanted by the quest for ideological purity.
BTW, I think it's important to say there are many shades of social conservatism and libertarianism. The left likes to categorize everyone into neat little boxes, and they would LOVE to divide the Republican party by making its divisions seem wider than they truly are.
Those of us who essentially agree on limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty need to get our acts together, or we are going to be a minority party for a long time. In the meantime, we now have a Democrat-controlled congress that is opposed to most of our shared ideals.
Agreed. I've noticed that your posts are quite civil, and you represent your "side" (lack of better term) well. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to show their "love" with fangs and venom, but I've seen it happen, and been bitten more than once. Before the election, many S/Cs considered us Ls worthless to the party. These same S/Cs blamed us for the losses of that election. Huh?? Worthless AND crucial?
Many of us libertarians have the same basic morality that social conservatives have. The difference, I think, is that libertarians believe morality should be taught and learned by individuals, not enforced at the point of a gun (read: forbidden by law). Jesus wasn't an enforcer. He was a teacher. He led by example. There are plenty of things that I think are immoral that I don't think should be criminalized.