------ 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.
Our greatest strength while we are small is in everything libertarians do not agree upon. The more infighting, factions and caucuses the better. I look forward to the day when the party is paralyzed by infighting. Because that is when we will break out and become a dynamic movement. In 1981 we were almost there. Interestingly, I blame Reason Magazine for helping set the movemnet back. They had a news letter called "Front Lines" which was full of Party infighting over ideological questions. They got rid of it, wanting not to advertise how dis-unified we were.
Uh, looks like Jonah is so bright that he's responded to you before you commented-- check out "The Libertarian Lie" of 12/18/01. I quote one of the best parts below:
"So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks.
In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, "Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt all your political cares and concerns away.
And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about "rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the "Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways.
And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple philosophies — which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always said libertarians are very smart) — whether they're Marxists, libertarians, whatever — claim that other smart people "just don't get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious. "
Gee-- the product of a religious impulse, or obnoxious? Your choice. For what it's worth, many intelligent people under 30 think that they discovered libertarianism all by themselves and no one has ever understood it before. By the time one reaches middle age, its limitations have become apparent.