Response to an article at LP Delaware yahoo group > If libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, > what does this analysis of Rudy resemble?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/giuliani_shifting_priorities_o\ .html > 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.
