Definitions of libertarianism

Response to an article at LP Delaware yahoo group

> If libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative,
> what does this analysis of Rudy resemble?

> When measuring the metaphorical glass in degrees of fullness,
> aren’t the positives outweighing the negatives for elect ability?

No, and that’s what the big problem with the “socially tolerant,
fiscally conservative” tag is (nevermind that Giuliani is very
intolerant on many other social issues, ranging from privacy to
medical marijuana, and only “fiscally conservative” when not
considering deficit spending).

The real bottom line: war is the health of the state. Civil liberties
shrink, and government spending and regulation of the economy expands,
most rapidly in wartime. Often, these changes remain permanent after
the war is over.

For reich wingers, their pro-war position trumps everything else, and
in the real world this leads to maximum government growth on all fronts.

So, too, should libertarians make war the #1 issue. Those who are
against war should be seen as partial allies, even if we don’t agree
on other issues. Those who are for warmongering should forever be our
eternal opponents, even if they are slightly, out-of-focus,
libertarian-ish lite on some other issues.

This is also a real weakness of the Nolan Chart, which does not deal
with foreign policy (other than foreign aid as an economic issue).

Libertarianism is adherence to the non-initiation of force principle.
Being socially tolerant and fiscally conservative is an outgrowth of
applying that principle, but it does not constitute being libertarian
all by itself, especially when combined with warmongering, which
stands libertarianism on its head.

As Thomas Sipos wrote at TPW

“war is the health of the state,” which means that war not only kills
human lives (without which, all other liberties are impossible), but
that war also massively increases spending, and severely curtails
civil liberties.

Thus, being right on the war is the primary issue. [..]

Likewise, while I’m sure I’d disagree with Kucinich on most of his
positions (if I paid much attention to him), because of his antiwar
stance, I’d support him over all the other Demopublicans (Paul excepted).

In fact, Kucinich has said he would want Ron Paul to be his VP if
he won the Dem nomination…that reinforces what I have been saying
about an untapped market on the left for libertarian outreach.

See also

http://mises.org/story/2099

Congressional Scorecard

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j060702.html

The Reality
of Red State Fascism

On Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich