The past? We can still be a liberal nation (and conservative also), but not if we give our liberal heritage away to every ultra statist who claims it. They need to be challanged everytime they claim the title.
Conservatism has been falsely labeled as filled with hate and anger, but it is actually the [pseudo]liberal that is nearly consumed by hate, class warfare, envy, etc. I say pseudo-liberal because ~90% of people, and 100% of the politicians, who claim to be liberal are really pseudo-liberal. A real liberal has compassion for others, but gives from their own time talent and treasure to help. A true liberal also has a high sense of right and wrong and a high sense of courage in defending the weak and innocent. The one person that I know who fits the description of a true liberal is Mother Theresa. I cannot thiink of a single so called political liberal who can measure up to the above description, do you?
I am disappointed that you resort to the term "statist" given your past civility in defending your libertarian philosophy. Be that as it may, I am glad that the debate has been settled as to the myth that libertarians are just conservatives in all but name. The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.
------ liberals see no problem with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.
In this sense, cultural libertarians are less bigoted than their liberal cousins. The libertarians think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal.
Indeed, RINO's like Goldberg see no problem either, with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.
And, libertarians certainly do NOT think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal. -- For instance, the few libertarians on FR can not even agree on such basics of libertarian ideology as the non agression principle.
Jonah's generalizations are the pure BS of an outclassed mind, arguing of prinicples he doesn't and can't understand.
Gillespie's world view has little to do with "tolerance" and much more to do with liberation through transgression. Perhaps "liberation" is too strong a word. It's just the throwing off of an heritage. "Tolerance" is a much more complicated concept with many more ironies and pitfalls than you can find in Nick Gillespie's view of the world.
*What does this phrase really mean; the varying roles of the sexes or transgender issues? It's a greasy slope and standardless; but perhaps that's the point and center (hence the platitudinous terms and phrases he quotes); and with standards that particular center won't hold.
His reply is cheerfully nihilistic. I am not afraid of the political and social ethos he describes I am turned off by it. His acription of fear as the factor driving most conservatives is wishful thinking on his part. IMO they don't fear it; they repulse it, which makes for a greater willingness to extend the battle against it.
I basically consider myself a conservative, but I hold absolutely no allegiance to party. I could vote as easily for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or Right to Life candidate, if he/she possessed the qualities I judge to be necessary in a leader. But the more I become acquainted with the manifesto of Libertarianism, via its best and brightest proponents, the more I find myself rejecting it a little more with each encounter. Not because of particular stances the party takes; some of which I'm in agreement with, but because of that palpable nihilism which this very bright author vehemently denies, but which his expression of thought, as penned in the above essay, belies.