Thanks for the assist.
I’m a conservative and for limited government and conservative economics and pro Reagan, the hero of conservatism and a non-libertarian.
What you are admitting is what I keep saying, that what separates libertarians from Reagan and conservatism, is their social liberalism and being liberal on national defense.
Okay, that was like pulling teeth to get you to at least admit a limited government stance. That is a libertarian position. Sorry if that hurts, but it is. How far you are willing to carry that stance is where a lot of lines get drawn. Reagan read libertarian thinkers, and especially admired the fusionism of Frank Meyer. Meyer blended traditionalism with libertarianism, which at that point had very little to say on social issues. Our culture would not come under direct attack until later. He impacted Reagan and Buckley enormously. That’s why Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, and others are libertarians that are part of the conservative pantheon. Philosophies are not grab bags for issues.
I’m glad to finally hear your support for limited government. I still think you are utterly ignorant on the subject at hand, and tend to be very dishonest in debate. You continually attack straw men, and make claims about previous posts that are demonstrably untrue. When called out on these lapses, you obfuscate and avoid even further.
I do not believe that; I can remember nowhere that you have suggested limiting government. (Certainly not on this thread.)