Replies

Just a few points.

Your tempered responses are a welcomed change from some of the heated libertarian rhetoric that is continually spewed around here. I especially take note of the following remark you made.

>>>... Reagan ... is not a libertarian.

Finally, honesty.

You also reach some conclusions that aren't true.

If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision. Just don't expect astute political observers to accept such a reality. If you want to be associated with the term "libertarian philosophy", then you can't pick and choose to the extent you want to. Why not just call yourself an independent and leave it at that. That would be real political honesty.

This idea you mention, that there are real libertarians and then there are "fringe" libertarians, will come as a shock to the majority who call themselves libertarians here on FreeRepublic.

>>>Less government, more individual freedom - two areas that libertarianism and conservatism agree upon. Why is this such an outrage?

Because there are significant differences that you're over looking. The fact is, many libertarians want America to return to the strict Constitutionalist government that existed at the founding of the Republic. Any intelligent and rational person knows, that isn't possible. Conservatives want the Founding Fathers basic concepts to be followed more closely. But conservatives also understand, the world is more complex today, then it was 200 years ago and therefore, following the true intentions of the Founding Fathers, must be placed in the context of the contemporary times we live in. The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today.

Posted by Reagan Man:
"This idea you mention, that there are real libertarians and then there are "fringe" libertarians, will come as a shock to the majority who call themselves libertarians here on FreeRepublic."

I would wager that this not evidence that proves me wrong, rather it is evidence of the following:
1) The fringes of any ideology or movement, more so than the mainstream, tend to be outspoken and drawn to the arenas where they can voice their opinions, such as this medium
2) Anonymous mediums such as this bring out the most aggressive and extreme views of those who are the "fringe" of their ideology or movement

Posted by Reagan Man:
"If you choose to define your form of libertarianism, as a philosophy that is opposed to the Libertarian Party and its political platform and agenda, that's your decision."

Is this the first time that you have heard of this idea, that Libertarian is different from libertarian? This has always been common knowledge to like-minded circles that I associate with, and even among the large listening audience of a local libertarian radio talk show host here in Boston, of all places. The dictionary definition of libertarian is not the same as the ideology that underlies the Libertarian Party. There are many similarities, more similiarities between libertarians and Libertarians than between conservatives and libertarians, but the differences are great enough that many, many of us do not wish to associate with the Libertarian Party, unless it is to change it. Do not take my word for it. Open up the dictionary to "libertarian". Set it next to your computer, go to the Libertarian Party's website, and read the platform. Moreover, pick out all of the contradictions. The party has been hijacked by anarchists and ACLU types.

Posted by Reagan Man:
"Conservatives want the Founding Fathers basic concepts to be followed more closely. But conservatives also understand, the world is more complex today, then it was 200 years ago and therefore, following the true intentions of the Founding Fathers, must be placed in the context of the contemporary times we live in. The government of 1790 could never handle the complicated government and international world we live in today."

In the sense that there was no large standing military in 1790, I agree. Otherwise, how does a large government give us an advantage? I cannot think of a government program or department, outside of the military or intelligence, that benefits our nation today. If there are any, which of these do conservatives advocate?