Federal Politics

[Seven]

The issues here, is can we get Libertarian Ideals to play out in the real world without ending up in anarchy or retreating to a statist position.

Good points in that post. There were a few things I disagreed with slightly, but we're largely on the same page. The point I want to get across, is that most Libertarians are viewed as nut jobs. Far worse than Republicans are viewed. Talk about an image problem, the country as a whole thinks Libertarians are all crazy preppers and anarchists (and unfortunately, there is plenty of that). And the idea that states can survive as basically individual countries without a federal government just isn't accurate. Quality of life would plummet.

[GoSlash27]

I'm most definitely a libertarian, and a conservative one at that. The problem however, is that there often isn't any balance associated with political positions. It's all zero-sum games. Yet, on the other hand, when you say, "continue to help fund those bodies with federal money," you also hand control right back to the federal government, and it also betrays a deeper level of thinking that I am very much in disagreement with.

There is no such thing as "federal money," only "my money" and "your money" that the federal government takes and then hands back out, and a good portion of it is done for political favors. Yes, I do believe that there needs to be a federal collection of money to raise and keep a standing army, to help facility commerce between the states and abroad, and to assure justice (personal liberties trump state's rights, which trump federal IMO, which is why I believe the federal government was right to step in and end segregation. It wasn't a state's rights issue, it was a personal rights issue). But those things need to be done on a large, pre-planned scale that delimits the amount of manipulation a small group of politicians can have over it.

In truth, there is nothing wrong with Libertarian ideals. Each and every person has the right by God or Nature (however you want to put it), to make of him or her self whatever they choose, and the least amount of shackles placed on that person, is the most moral government to govern that person, and that, is a libertarian government.

The issues here is, how can we get Libertarian ideals to play out in the real world without ending up in anarchy or retreating to a statist position.

Pretty much this. All this stuff isn't some wacky fringe Libertarian/ anarchist notion, it's the very *heart* of conservatism itself! I'm honestly floored that so many around here call themselves "conservatives" but don't recognize it when they hear it.

As for how to get these ideas into play, it's the same method that any other ideology gets implemented; elections and education. To keep us from retreating to statism, we have to dismantle large chunks of the Federal government to reduce their power and influence. They are the #1 largest and most powerful special interest group. AFA anarchy, it seems to me that the surest way for that to happen is to continue on the present course.

[GBMelBlount]

I'm most definitely a libertarian, and a conservative one at that.

I'm 100% with you Preach.

The founders of our country crafted our constitution in hopes of preserving our rights to freedom and liberty and keeping our country from becoming what it is today...

A big, bloated, over reaching, overregulating government run by unethical, greedy and self serving politicians hell bent on wealth redistribution, social engineering and lining their own pockets.

In truth, there is nothing wrong with Libertarian ideals. Each and every person has the right by God or Nature (however you want to put it), to make of him or her self whatever they choose, and the least amount of shackles placed on that person, is the most moral government to govern that person, and that, is a libertarian government.

Well said Preach. Freedom and liberty are what made the United States the greatest country on earth.

The issues here is, how can we get Libertarian ideals to play out in the real world without ending up in anarchy or retreating to a statist position.

EXACTLY!

So what this all comes down to is HOW can we get libertarian ideals to play out in the real world and get this country on the right track?

1. Uncompromising gridlock believing the country has to COMPLETELY fall apart and fail*......or.......

2. Build a consensus through compromise, negotiation and reason to make positive change.

* - Even AFTER this country fails from gridlock we will *STILL* have to build consensus and compromise to get anything done. THAT will never change.



and I am sorry to hijack your thread Seven. I agree with you on most everything you say but I do feel there is room for significant cutback in the size of government and government spending, including military. The waste and inefficiency is troubling.

[GoSlash27]

Good points in that post. There were a few things I disagreed with slightly, but we're largely on the same page. The point I want to get across, is that most Libertarians are viewed as nut jobs. Far worse than Republicans are viewed. Talk about an image problem, the country as a whole thinks Libertarians are all crazy preppers and anarchists (and unfortunately, there is plenty of that). And the idea that states can survive as basically individual countries without a federal government just isn't accurate. Quality of life would plummet.

I agree with all of this, but again you're arguing against a position that I never stated. We need a Federal government and we need that government to do it's job as directed in the Constitution. No more and no less.

[GoSlash27]

Posted for those who don't seem to be familiar with "conservatism".

[Seven]

I'm 100% with you Preach.

The founders of our country crafted our constitution in hopes of preserving our rights to freedom and liberty and keeping our country from becoming what it is today...

A big, bloated, over reaching, overregulating government run by unethical, greedy and self serving politicians hell bent on wealth redistribution, social engineering and lining their own pockets.



Well said Preach. Freedom and liberty are what made the United States the greatest country on earth.



EXACTLY!

So what this all comes down to is HOW can we get libertarian ideals to play out in the real world and get this country on the right track?

1. Uncompromising gridlock believing the country has to COMPLETELY fall apart and fail*......or.......

2. Build a consensus through compromise, negotiation and reason to make positive change.

* - Even AFTER this country fails from gridlock we will *STILL* have to build consensus and compromise to get anything done. THAT will never change.



and I am sorry to hijack your thread Seven. I agree with you on most everything you say but I do feel there is room for significant cutback in the size of government and government spending, including military. The waste and inefficiency is troubling.

The beauty of this thread is that hijacking is nearly impossible. Everything is in play.

And I'd say inefficiency is one of our government's biggest downfalls. Taking certain powers away from D.C. and putting them in the hands of state and local governments would go a long way in correcting that in my opinion. We just have to be realistic about it.

[zulater]

I'm 100% with you Preach.

The founders of our country crafted our constitution in hopes of preserving our rights to freedom and liberty and keeping our country from becoming what it is today...

A big, bloated, over reaching, overregulating government run by unethical, greedy and self serving politicians hell bent on wealth redistribution, social engineering and lining their own pockets.



Well said Preach. Freedom and liberty are what made the United States the greatest country on earth.



EXACTLY!

So what this all comes down to is HOW can we get libertarian ideals to play out in the real world and get this country on the right track?

1. Uncompromising gridlock believing the country has to COMPLETELY fall apart and fail*......or.......

2. Build a consensus through compromise, negotiation and reason to make positive change.

* - Even AFTER this country fails from gridlock we will *STILL* have to build consensus and compromise to get anything done. THAT will never change.



and I am sorry to hijack your thread Seven. I agree with you on most everything you say but I do feel there is room for significant cutback in the size of government and government spending, including military. The waste and inefficiency is troubling.

Great post. Addresses the issues without ducking reality.

[GBMelBlount]

Posted for those who don't seem to be familiar with "conservatism".

posted for those who don't seem to be familiar with "compromise":

Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)

An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan
Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:05:04 PM by Diddle E. Squat

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960104/posts

*Your* great conservative's own words about "radical conservatives", not mine.

[GoSlash27]

posted for those who don't seem to be familiar with "compromise":



*Your* great conservative's own words about "radical conservatives", not mine.

Yeah, and do you recall how that ended up working out?
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/25/...on-compromise/

That's the problem with "compromise" and governing by consensus; it all sounds high-minded and practical until you realize that you're dealing with socialists. "Compromise" means giving up some of what you have in exchange for gaining something in return. What conservative principles are you willing to give up, and what can you realistically expect them to give up in return?
To expect them to bargain in good faith when there's so much power and money involved is naive to the point of absurdity. When you give up your principles, you give up your credibility along with it. *That's* why Republicans who behave that way are losing elections, while the ones who stand and fight are winning.

[fansince'76]

Yeah, and do you recall how that ended up working out?
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/25/...on-compromise/

That's the problem with "compromise" and governing by consensus; it all sounds high-minded and practical until you realize that you're dealing with socialists. "Compromise" means giving up some of what you have in exchange for gaining something in return. What conservative principles are you willing to give up, and what can you realistically expect them to give up in return?
To expect them to bargain in good faith when there's so much power and money involved is naive to the point of absurdity. When you give up your principles, you give up your credibility along with it. *That's* why Republicans who behave that way are losing elections, while the ones who stand and fight are winning.

While I agree, I have to ask what exactly are they "winning?" The Dems still control the Senate and picked up more seats in the House this past election. Meanwhile, the Republicans who did "win" are labeled "obstructionist teabaggers" by the damn press that also blames the current mess this country's in entirely on them. Meanwhile, they continue to give the kid gloves treatment to their "savior" in the White House, while the majority of people in this country swallow this bullshit hook, line and sinker. And on that note, I agree with GBMelBlount's earlier assertion that common sense went out the window in this country a long time ago and that, in a nutshell, is why this country is basically fucked, if you'll pardon the expression.

[Craic]

While I agree, I have to ask what exactly are they "winning?" The Dems still control the Senate and picked up more seats in the House this past election. Meanwhile, the Republicans who did "win" are labeled "obstructionist teabaggers" by the damn press that also blames the current mess this country's in entirely on them. Meanwhile, they continue to give the kid gloves treatment to their "savior" in the White House, while the majority of people in this country swallow this bullshit hook, line and sinker. And on that note, I agree with GBMelBlount's earlier assertion that common sense went out the window in this country a long time ago and that, in a nutshell, is why this country is basically fucked, if you'll pardon the expression.

Three words.

Zero-Sum Game.

The day politics devovled to this was the day we lost our government. Of course, this isn't the first time that's happened.

[GBMelBlount]

Three words.

Zero-Sum Game.

The day politics devovled to this was the day we lost our government. Of course, this isn't the first time that's happened.

I guess the way I feel about this Preach is similar to a production possibilities curve (guns vs. butter) but for politics, where there are numerous points on the curve that while most are not "optimal" they are still more desirable than just one OR just the other.

[Craic]

I guess the way I feel about this Preach is similar to a production possibilities curve (guns vs. butter) but for politics, where there are numerous points on the curve that while most are not "optimal" they are still more desirable than just one OR just the other.

Yep. That doesn't mean there aren't non-negotiables. It does mean however, that not everything is non-negotiable. On the other hand, for "conservatives" to actually act in this vein, they have to be conservatives when their party is both in power, and out of power. No spending like a drunken sailor when the GOP has the whitehouse, and then demanding tightfisted budgeting when the Dems are in the whitehouse.
____________________________________________

To those who don't think the libertarian ideal is most appropriate for government, let me ask a question: who do you think is the most qualified to determine the way you should live your life?

[GBMelBlount]

To those who don't think the libertarian ideal is most appropriate for government, let me ask a question: who do you think is the most qualified to determine the way you should live your life?

Let me ask you as question Preacher.

How do you feel the libertarian ideal differs from the principles this country was founded upon?

[zulater]

posted for those who don't seem to be familiar with "compromise":



*Your* great conservative's own words about "radical conservatives", not mine.

Thanks for posting GB.

[GoSlash27]

While I agree, I have to ask what exactly are they "winning?" The Dems still control the Senate and picked up more seats in the House this past election. Meanwhile, the Republicans who did "win" are labeled "obstructionist teabaggers" by the damn press that also blames the current mess this country's in entirely on them. Meanwhile, they continue to give the kid gloves treatment to their "savior" in the White House, while the majority of people in this country swallow this bullshit hook, line and sinker. And on that note, I agree with GBMelBlount's earlier assertion that common sense went out the window in this country a long time ago and that, in a nutshell, is why this country is basically fucked, if you'll pardon the expression.

At the moment, it's more about what they've not lost. If it wasn't for the obstructionist teabaggers, the Democrats would have a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House as well. Yeah, the media paints them as evil ogres, but if you notice, people are electing them *because* they are obstructionist, and they are not electing Republicans who are going along to get along. That's the whole point I've been harping on all this time; people won't elect Republicans who aren't unapologetically and loudly conservative, which is why the whole "steal the middle" strategy is a failure.

Yep. That doesn't mean there aren't non-negotiables. It does mean however, that not everything is non-negotiable. On the other hand, for "conservatives" to actually act in this vein, they have to be conservatives when their party is both in power, and out of power. No spending like a drunken sailor when the GOP has the whitehouse, and then demanding tightfisted budgeting when the Dems are in the whitehouse.

This deserves a rep, but I've exceeded my quota.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me ask you as question Preacher.

How do you feel the libertarian ideal differs from the principles this country was founded upon?

I know you asked Preach, but I can answer that also if you'd like.

[Craic]

Let me ask you as question Preacher.

How do you feel the libertarian ideal differs from the principles this country was founded upon?

It depends on what specifically you're talking about. (btw, you know that was general question, not directed at you, right? I know we are more in agreement than disagreement here).

If we're talking the libertarian ideals that some seem to push, then I believe the principles differ in that those of the founding fathers saw all rights deriving from and pursuant to the individual, and anyone or anything that was a threat to that was to be removed. Whereas, the popular version of libertarianism today seems to suggest that the fundamental rights are derived from and pursuant to regional governing authorities (states, but since "state" has a different meaning in this kind of discussion, I'm trying to avoid the word), rather than the person.

That is a leftover from Jim Crow days when those who refused to accord human beings the rights inherent to them appealed to state's rights over federal rights, and turned a blind eye to an individual's rights. In doing so, the very principles in the DoI were violated. There are those that would argue (rightly, to a degree) that the principles in the DoI were violated ab initio by slavery, but such an argument ignores the fact that the Europeans didn't consider blacks human (3/5ths) and as such, not having inherent rights. The 13-15th amendments changed that, according the status of full human to blacks (only took how long?) and at that point, the appeal to "states rights" by Jim Crow was made specifically to allow states to continue to deny "individual rights." Thus, the entire "states rights" argument ended up a hundred and eighty degrees opposite of the founding fathers

It it has now been picked up (not the racism, but the argument of state over federal) many who espouse "states rights." Thus, the states, rather than the federal government is the guarantor of the rights. No one will ever say that, but watch how they operate and what they argue for, and you'll find that it is true. And yet even more, the basic holder of rights in many libertarian arguments, is the state rather than the person. (Again, this isn't equating anyone who claims "states rights" with being a racist. It is however, tracing the origin of the current argument from there.) That again, is exactly opposite the founding fathers.

A second place is the belief that there is no role for the federal government in creating infrastructure. Yet, the founding fathers were very clear that it was one of the basic functions. Though it has now been abused and virtually destroyed of its original intent, the commerce clause specifically gives the federal government the authority to create infrastructure to facilitate such commerce. The federal freeway system, railroads, planes, airports, buses, anything dealing with transportation, or developing a safe ability to transport, falls under that clause, as does power generation, which is necessary for all commerce, unless we want to step back into the pre-industrial world.

I could go on, but I figure this is enough to keep conversation going for a while.

[GoSlash27]

I agree, and personally I simplify it a little more than that.
Libertarians believe that individual liberty is the only permissible goal, and that nothing should ever be allowed to interfere with that for any reason. Constitutionalists understand that, while individual liberty is the driving force and purpose of this country, a certain, rigidly controlled portion of it *must* be delegated to government in order to preserve and protect it.
Libertarians often disagree with the Constitution, and hence disagree with what this country is designed to be. This is the central theme that divides me from Libertarians; I accept the Constitution for what it is and insist on 100% enforcement of it, while they do not.

[Seven]

So Preacher, it seems to me what you're saying is there are very many different types of Libertarians? Which is the problem. I have no idea what a real "Libertarian" is. Because you have people like yourself who seem to realize there is a role for a federal government but it does not have the right to impede as much as it does, then you have people like Slash who believe we should "axe" the federal government and the individual states will be perfectly fine on their own without any outside help. Is there a certain type of Libertarian that you would say is the majority or the prototype so-to-speak? Because I like what I've always thought were Libertarian ideals, but the more I hear Libertarians speak the more I become aware that most of them have no idea what they are talking about (at least the ones I have dealt with). You can't just abandon the federal government with no regard to the consequences. This country may be toast now, but it would be burnt toast in that case. It seems as if many of them believe the state has a right to tell them how to live, but the federal government doesn't, which I don't get. What difference does it make? Just because state government is smaller means they can decide how you live your life? I've always thought Libertarians believed the government in general was there to work for them and stay out of the way. But I don't see that belief voiced much anymore.

[GoSlash27]

So Preacher, it seems to me what you're saying is there are very many different types of Libertarians? Which is the problem. I have no idea what a real "Libertarian" is. Because you have people like yourself who seem to realize there is a role for a federal government but it does not have the right to impede as much as it does, then you have people like Slash who believe we should "axe" the federal government and the individual states will be perfectly fine on their own without any outside help. Is there a certain type of Libertarian that you would say is the majority or the prototype so-to-speak? Because I like what I've always thought were Libertarian ideals, but the more I hear Libertarians speak the more I become aware that most of them have no idea what they are talking about (at least the ones I have dealt with). You can't just abandon the federal government with no regard to the consequences. This country may be toast now, but it would be burnt toast in that case. It seems as if many of them believe the state has a right to tell them how to live, but the federal government doesn't, which I don't get. What difference does it make? Just because state government is smaller means they can decide how you live your life? I've always thought Libertarians believed the government in general was there to work for them and stay out of the way. But I don't see that belief voiced much anymore.

Huh? Are you actually *reading* anything I've typed?

[steeldawg]

Huh? Are you actually *reading* anything I've typed?

Do libertarians support the repeal of income tax?

[GoSlash27]

Do libertarians support the repeal of income tax?

Surely.

[Craic]

So Preacher, it seems to me what you're saying is there are very many different types of Libertarians? Which is the problem. I have no idea what a real "Libertarian" is. Because you have people like yourself who seem to realize there is a role for a federal government but it does not have the right to impede as much as it does, then you have people like Slash who believe we should "axe" the federal government and the individual states will be perfectly fine on their own without any outside help. Is there a certain type of Libertarian that you would say is the majority or the prototype so-to-speak? Because I like what I've always thought were Libertarian ideals, but the more I hear Libertarians speak the more I become aware that most of them have no idea what they are talking about (at least the ones I have dealt with). You can't just abandon the federal government with no regard to the consequences. This country may be toast now, but it would be burnt toast in that case. It seems as if many of them believe the state has a right to tell them how to live, but the federal government doesn't, which I don't get. What difference does it make? Just because state government is smaller means they can decide how you live your life? I've always thought Libertarians believed the government in general was there to work for them and stay out of the way. But I don't see that belief voiced much anymore.

Like all systems of belief, there is no one "prototype." Many try to say that "conservatism" is specifically that which Reagan laid out, then go right on and forget just how much Reagan compromised and raised taxes (yes, he did, for those who want to argue, he just didn't raise income taxes).

What I would say is that there are those who are constitutionalists, and then those who are libertarian-above-all-else-ists. Don't however, confuse libertarian with the libertarian party. That's the same as confusing a Republican-those who believe in representative rule, with the Republicans of the Republican party, or democrats (those who believe in democracy) with the democrats of the democratic party.

Also, very few if any want to truly "abandon" or "dismantle" the federal government. What is normally meant is the massive civil service program, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of grants and programs for things that many figure either aren't necessary to further the nation or better done at a state level, and the resulting culture in Washington DC that treats the elected representatives like the neophytes that need to be educated in how things are "done in the big city." That structure continues no matter who is elected the people with real power, those who get to determine what information gets to the elected officials, or what moneys designated by the elected officials goes out and to whom.

In that sense, I too want to dismantle the federal government. It is an overbloated cancer on the nation. That doesn't mean that the US goes without a central government, but rather, that the central government are the elected leaders from the states that represent the people of the state, rather than nameless, faceless bureaucrats that direct the government today. What I'm discussing here is not a conspiracy nor isn't it a purposed event. Rather, it's institutional momentum that overrides even our elected reps.

Then, there's a whole other part where money is used to buy elections through legislation, but we won't get into that.

[Seven]

Like all systems of belief, there is no one "prototype." Many try to say that "conservatism" is specifically that which Reagan laid out, then go right on and forget just how much Reagan compromised and raised taxes (yes, he did, for those who want to argue, he just didn't raise income taxes).

What I would say is that there are those who are constitutionalists, and then those who are libertarian-above-all-else-ists. Don't however, confuse libertarian with the libertarian party. That's the same as confusing a Republican-those who believe in representative rule, with the Republicans of the Republican party, or democrats (those who believe in democracy) with the democrats of the democratic party.

Also, very few if any want to truly "abandon" or "dismantle" the federal government. What is normally meant is the massive civil service program, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of grants and programs for things that many figure either aren't necessary to further the nation or better done at a state level, and the resulting culture in Washington DC that treats the elected representatives like the neophytes that need to be educated in how things are "done in the big city." That structure continues no matter who is elected the people with real power, those who get to determine what information gets to the elected officials, or what moneys designated by the elected officials goes out and to whom.

In that sense, I too want to dismantle the federal government. It is an overbloated cancer on the nation. That doesn't mean that the US goes without a central government, but rather, that the central government are the elected leaders from the states that represent the people of the state, rather than nameless, faceless bureaucrats that direct the government today. What I'm discussing here is not a conspiracy nor isn't it a purposed event. Rather, it's institutional momentum that overrides even our elected reps.

Then, there's a whole other part where money is used to buy elections through legislation, but we won't get into that.

Thanks for the input. I very well could be confusing libertarians with the Libertarian party. I know there isn't really a "prototype" for any set of beliefs, it's just hard for me to pin down libertarians. I hear a lot of different and conflicting ideals coming from people who call themselves "libertarians". I realize that happens with Republicans and Democrats, too, but I feel like I know a Republican or Democrat when I see one - they are more well defined to me - libertarians just seem to be all over the map. That's not meant to be insulting to those of you who consider yourself libertarian, it's just how I feel.

[Craic]

Thanks for the input. I very well could be confusing libertarians with the Libertarian party. I know there isn't really a "prototype" for any set of beliefs, it's just hard for me to pin down libertarians. I hear a lot of different and conflicting ideals coming from people who call themselves "libertarians". I realize that happens with Republicans and Democrats, too, but I feel like I know a Republican or Democrat when I see one - they are more well defined to me - libertarians just seem to be all over the map. That's not meant to be insulting to those of you who consider yourself libertarian, it's just how I feel.

Actually, you're exactly right. Think of it this way. Liberal/Conservative is a left/right issue. Now, what is the opposite of a libertarian? A statist. Someone that wants complete domination of individual life by government (of course, there's much middle ground between the two). Now that isn't left right, rather, it's up and down. Say, libertarian is up higher, for more personal freedom, and statist is down lower, for less personal freedoms. Thus, what you end up having, are conservative libertarians, liberal libertarians, conservative statists, and liberal statists. Every one of them will have a very different view of things. then, there's all the middle grounds which they encroach upon.

So, it may look something like this:


Of course, to libertarians, it looks more like this:


So, for instance, a typical "conservative" may be very much against Gay marriage, but he doesn't care what happens in the bedroom. A libertarian conservative may be against gay marriage, but would vote for it because it puts the right at the individual level and he feels that it is wrong to deny that right to another person. A statist conservative may not only be against gay marriage, but believe the government has the right to dictate that homosexuality be punished.

A liberal libertarian may be for both gay marriage and believe that homosexuality is absolutely fine, but will fight tooth and nail for the conservatives to be able to speak their mind about it, even though they completely disagree. A regular liberal is all for it and looks on with disgust at the conservatives. A statist liberal not only is for it, but believes the conservatives need to be shut up by government censorship.

That is just one scenario.

Here is a "Libertarian Purity Test." It's fun and enlightening at the same time. I'm a "Medium-core libertarian." According to this test.

[Seven]

Actually, you're exactly right. Think of it this way. Liberal/Conservative is a left/right issue. Now, what is the opposite of a libertarian? A statist. Someone that wants complete domination of individual life by government (of course, there's much middle ground between the two). Now that isn't left right, rather, it's up and down. Say, libertarian is up higher, for more personal freedom, and statist is down lower, for less personal freedoms. Thus, what you end up having, are conservative libertarians, liberal libertarians, conservative statists, and liberal statists. Every one of them will have a very different view of things. then, there's all the middle grounds which they encroach upon.

So, it may look something like this:


Of course, to libertarians, it looks more like this:


So, for instance, a typical "conservative" may be very much against Gay marriage, but he doesn't care what happens in the bedroom. A libertarian conservative may be against gay marriage, but would vote for it because it puts the right at the individual level and he feels that it is wrong to deny that right to another person. A statist conservative may not only be against gay marriage, but believe the government has the right to dictate that homosexuality be punished.

A liberal libertarian may be for both gay marriage and believe that homosexuality is absolutely fine, but will fight tooth and nail for the conservatives to be able to speak their mind about it, even though they completely disagree. A regular liberal is all for it and looks on with disgust at the conservatives. A statist liberal not only is for it, but believes the conservatives need to be shut up by government censorship.

That is just one scenario.

Here is a "Libertarian Purity Test." It's fun and enlightening at the same time. I'm a "Medium-core libertarian." According to this test.

I get what you're saying. I think you've helped me get a clearer view of how so many different views are labeled "libertarian" or at least what the different stances are. And I got "soft-core libertarian".

[Seven]

Here is a "Libertarian Purity Test." It's fun and enlightening at the same time. I'm a "Medium-core libertarian." According to this test.

Everyone should take this. I'd be interested to see the results.

[Mach1]

You are a medium-core libertarian here.

[silver & black]

Here is a "Libertarian Purity Test."

I scored 44.

[GoSlash27]

63. "Medium- core"