True. I simply contend that the absence of a given government policy or action is as much a statement of social ideology as the presence of the same would be.
For example, the anti-marriage crowd, Gloria Steinem et al, oppose the fast-tracking of the elimination of the "marriage penalty" in the tax code. Fast tracking it would be an action reflecting a social ideology; same goes for advocating the absence of that action.
Other Libertarians seem to feel that the absence of an action is always nonideological: this perspective. I contend.
To some degree that is a true statement. Any thinking person realizes that no action can be action of consequence. The Libertarian party has suffered from allowing a few morons to taint it, but the guiding principles hold true. Many "conservatives" value the very liberties and freedoms that the Libertarian party espouses. It is my opinion that it is becoming a wide spread belief that the RNC is not the party that desires liberty, but, rather, enough liberty to be tolerable to the powers that be.