This isn’t the kind of article I usually post. For one, it’s from a “palaeoconservative” or at least “palaeolibertarian” source (and I’m not a fan of either philosophy). But this article deals with the things we talked about in another thread on left and right, individualist and collectivist, so I’m pinging you for your interest.
Thank you; thought-provoking stuff.
One of the biggest obstacles to building real community today, I think, is the virtual community (e.g. FaceBook) and hi-tech communications that engross the younger crowd to the exclusion of building real-world relationships.
Part of the appeal of the Tea Party was actually congregating with neighbors and joining together for a deeply-held cause. It was exhilarating to realize we weren’t alone.
bkmk
I've always felt that there were two completely different mindsets drawn to "libertarianism." One type, as best represented by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, want limited government because the state destroys the kind of community ties (very much including loyalty and altruism within those communities) that arise organically out of religion, culture, or ethnicity by replacing them with artificial loyalties. They may oppose laws against drug use, sexual immorality, etc (though not in Hoppe's case), not because they approve of such behavior, but because the social cost of enforcing such laws is greater than the benefit to the community (I tend to agree with this view - the cost of Prohibition and the War on Drugs were/are greater than any social benefits). This form of libertarianism is inherently conservative.
In contrast, there is another school of libertarians (the more prevalent one, it seems) which wants limited government because they support an atomistic worldview in which the individual and his whims are the be-all and end-all to existence. Such "libertarians" see dismantling the state as just the first step in destroying any sense of identity and loyalty above that of the individual (for instance, the disciples of Ayn Rand who see any type of altruism and charity towards others, even when completely voluntary, as a sign of weakness and failure). This latter type of libertarianism is inherently radical, and is basically left-wing anarchism without the economic collectivism.
So you have two opposite worldviews trying to achieve completely opposite aims with similar "minarchist" policies.