That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it,
is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke