Nice long post. Some of it I even agree with. However, you waste a great deal of time defining general libertarian principals. We both know what they are. How about you see if YOU can tell me how you think libertarians and conservatives differ?
Note that while libertarians and conservatives share many principals, it is easy to identify clear libertarians and conservatives among the Founders. You can say that libertarianism goes back to the Enlightenment if you like (and I can say that Conservatism goes back even farther, if I like). The point is that Conservatives are no more libertarians who accept some government intrusions than libertarians are conservatives who believe that anything goes.
But that’s not really what we are talking about here. The point has been from the beginning that Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. You demanded some examples. I gave you several. You declined to address them specifically, after demanding them in your previous post. I can only assume that you’re just looking to waste my time here, or desperately hoping I’ll give you the oppostunity to post your talking points on drug legalization (none of which you thought of).
And, since you brought it up, the Catholic postion on the death penalty is that it is acceptable in some circumstances. That being said, you can oppose the death penalty and still be a Catholic. In the future, you DEFINITELY want to pick a different institution for metaphors with conservatism. One, because in the Catholic Church one man calls all the shots, and two, because, there is very little chance you know more than me about Catholic theology. Eighteen years of Catholic schooling (ten Jesuit), three clergy members in my extended family (one a bishop), and one in my immediate family.
My only point about drug enforcement for this thread remains that it is the #1 most important issue for libertarians. And you continue to prove that point nicely. It’s clearly an obsession for you.
And yes, I get it. Not a single libertarian on FR has ever smoked pot.
Forgot to add the most important part to that point about liberal and conservative founders:
It does not matter (of course) what things were like on July 3rd 1776. Or even what the Founders themselves were like. This for of government had never been tried in the history of man. Independance day was also Day One for political philosophies in this form of government. I’m sure Washington (conservative) and Jefferson (quasi-libertarian) were both monarchists at one point in their lives.
How about you see if YOU can tell me how you think libertarians and conservatives differ?
I have done it. Read my posts on the thread. I have discussed the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism, and what each is by definition, and in practice. I don't really see any point in wasting my time by reposting all my previous comments for you.
The point is that Conservatives are no more libertarians who accept some government intrusions than libertarians are conservatives who believe that anything goes.
And here you put words in my mouth. I have never suggested that conservatives are libertarians who accept some government intrusions. They are anything but. A true, as you would say "honest," conservative is a libertarian who has a foundation of traditional personal values and beliefs. They have a goal for society. Libertarianism is a skeleton. It is only a way to an end. Without an end you get lost. I am a libertarian, but more importantly I am a conservative. A libertarian, by definition, could be a person who believes in small government so that he can distribute or smoke pot or be a pimp. However, a conservative, by definition, believes in small government so that he, his family, and his fellow citizens can prosper and continue to shape their culture and country with those values. Strong personal values or independence, God, honesty, integrity, strength, charity, and so on. Libertarianism is a simple political philosophy, and a good one as far as it goes, but it is limited in scope and doesn't address societal issues as conservatism does.
But that’s not really what we are talking about here. The point has been from the beginning that Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. You demanded some examples. I gave you several. You declined to address them specifically, after demanding them in your previous post.
You are wrong. I did address them, either generally or specifically. If you have problems with what I said in response, then say so, but don't claim I didn't address them. That is untrue. Additionally, I never said that I would treat each thing specifically. But, even then, I did respond to them.
Lastly, Reagan was libertarian, as I have said. He was not necessarily a libertarian, as that would imply a limitation to that one value, and I don't claim that. However, he was fundamentally libertarian in his political beliefs, though he did compromise himself on that and other issues from time to time, and also made mistakes I think. Regardless, he was generally a believer in small government principles and laissez faire policies. Those are libertarian and so he was libertarian as well.
I can only assume that you’re just looking to waste my time here, or desperately hoping I’ll give you the oppostunity to post your talking points on drug legalization (none of which you thought of).
Ah, your favourite, and ironic, hobby of putting words in other peoples' mouths. I am not a supporter of "legalising drugs" though I don't really give that issue a lot of thought. I have said that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, and you have yet to refute that. Instead you claim that I am obsessed with drugs, and want them legalised. Blah, blah, blah... Stop making things up and make your point. Convince me that the War on Drugs, as a set of policies, is allowed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. You haven't even tried so far. You certainly won't by telling me what I believe in.
And, since you brought it up, the Catholic postion on the death penalty is that it is acceptable in some circumstances. That being said, you can oppose the death penalty and still be a Catholic. In the future, you DEFINITELY want to pick a different institution for metaphors with conservatism. One, because in the Catholic Church one man calls all the shots, and two, because, there is very little chance you know more than me about Catholic theology...
Are you really this obtuse? It is an analogy (not a metaphor in case you really don't know the difference) and not a theological statement. I know what the Church teaches. I didn't deny it. If you read what I said you will find that I was assuming you also know it. My point was, and is, that just because many people in a group believe something doesn't mean it is a definitive belief of the group itself. Do you understand this? Is it really that hard for you to get?
Just as (do you see the analogy part here?) the Catholic Church cannot be said to teach that the death penalty is always wrong just because many Catholics think so, (here comes the second part of the analogy) neither can libertarianism be said to be about freely available drugs just because many libertarians desire it.
My only point about drug enforcement for this thread remains that it is the #1 most important issue for libertarians. And you continue to prove that point nicely. It’s clearly an obsession for you.
Don't be simple. You are already tedious, but simple is not any better. This argument is insulting to anyone with an IQ in whole numbers. This is the same lefty "reasoning" that holds that voting against affirmative action is racist and just an example of conservative hatred of minorities. I oppose the War on Drugs only because it is unconstitutional and liberal. People can oppose a policy for reasons other than supporting what it pretends to oppose.
How about you quit putting words in my mouth, boasting about your theological prowess, and hurling epithets and start making some sensible points. You could at least try.