Replies

“The great majority of libertarian Republicans are also very conservative.”

Does supporting traditional conservative economics and foreign policy makes one libertarian? The self-procalimed libertarians that post here seems to think so. But as conservatives point out to them time and time again, the other 1/2 of libertarian ideology (+ the party) embraces some of the most un-conservitive destructive social policies that conservastives believe it is possible to take. Abortion alone makes libertarian ideology anethma to conservatives. Every time a conservative calls this out, libertarians on this site either pretend that the social stuff is invisible (downplay it), scold conservatives that they really don’t understand libertarian ideology, or become “cafeteria Catholics” and tell us how we must pick and choose our issues - thus letting yourself off the ideological hook for the social stuff.

You guys get to call yourself whatever you want, right, but are you really even “libertarian”?

But as conservatives point out to them time and time again, the other 1/2 of libertarian ideology (+ the party) embraces some of the most un-conservitive destructive social policies that conservastives believe it is possible to take ... You guys get to call yourself whatever you want, right, but are you really even “libertarian”?

So you are the arbiter of what libertarianism is? The basic principle of libertarianism is inherently domestic: property rights, and citizen A does not have the right to tell citizen B what they can or cannot do unless citizen B is taking or harming someone else's property. You are assigning a particular foreign policy on libertarianism, when it is not really part of libertarianism. I consider a policy of strong defense and general non-interference to be both libertarian and conservative. I also consider a strict immigration policy, that is rigorously enforced, to be very much libertarian. You may disagree, but no-one is really the unquestioned arbiter of such things.

As far as social policy is concerned, all of this is in a sense hypothetical. If we hadn't had the assault on traditional values and religious institutions, our society would be capable of handling freedom. But the effect of a long war on these values and institutions has left a society prone to decay. Here is where political philosophy has to be tempered by practical considerations. While I am a libertarian conservative, and therefore oppose drug laws philosophically, removing drug laws would have a net negative effect, because society can no longer handle that type of freedom. Maybe if we can somehow get back to a point where the vast majority of people were trained in how to be civilized, then we can revisit the issue. But until then, such discussions are moot. Of all of the forces assaulting the concept of personal liberty, this is the most trivial, anyway.

I support free markets, which are the American tradition - not the post 1913 income tax/Federal Reserve scheme, which is a monetary cartel and abdication of Congress’ monetary duties as described in Article I Section 8.

On foreign policy, the libertarian view is the traditional view. Until the days of the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, America minded its own business - we were a prosperous and free nation. From 1898 onwards, America became imperial, invading over 100 nations in that time. The support of empire necessitated a destruction of individual liberties, an avalanche of tax and regulatory burdens, and finally, undisguised Fascism. So no, I do not and will not support being world police.

It is not the job of the US federal government to meddle in every mess anywhere on the planet. Its duties are strictly limited by the political agreement which binds us together as a nation - the Constitution - and are described in the part of that document referenced above.

The definition of libertarian which you are describing isn’t correct. That description more properly fits with “progressives”, and while a handful (there really aren’t many) may fancy themselves libertarian, they are nothing of the sort. It’s not the government’s mandate to be involved in any of those social issues at all. It has no lawful role in them. If the States choose otherwise that is their right to do so, as individual states.