Before commenting or voting read this: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/
The reason the left had infuence for years was because the right was dominated by both tradcons and the corrupt dipshits who catered to them, effectively disenfranchising libertarian right leaning individuals, and unless those with culturally libertarian values can reassert themselves over these people including the tradcon leaning paleocons, legitimate opposition to the regressive left will die out.
While I agree we should ban and restrict media that's legitimately questionable, we need to take measures to preserve artistic and media freedom to stop the regressive left from poaching ideological allies and persuading them to join a terrorist ideology just so they can consume media that's merely offensive and not legitimately questionable, which fyi is a known lie regressive leftists are likely using to luer people.
Yes, I support soically conservative policies like restricting abortion and extramarital relations, but I just want apolitical media to be fully protected while persecuting regressive leftist bullshit.
As long as we give people a low barrier and wide access to weapons, preserve free speech, and not restrict media because it's offensive rather than legitimately questionable, we can do whatever the fuck we want to our enemies.
I am just trying to get my point across in an accurate manner that we can all agree upon.
To the extent that you can have a unifying principle that can unify all the various factions of the right, I think it has to be "freedom of association (and exclusion)": the idea that you can move someplace and have (and enforce) the social norms you want without someone who lives someplace else telling you you can't. And exclude people who don't want to abide by those norms. Beyond that the right isn't trying to be universal, and I think any attempt to have universal values or standards is doomed to failure.
To some extent the non-universal nature of right wing populism/nationalism is observable even today. One thing even shitlibs have noted is the international nature of the right-wing nationalist populist movement. At a cursory glance it seems odd that American, Canadian, French, English, German, etc... nationalists could all get together and find common ground to advance their respective causes given past national histories. But an American nationalist isn't trying to impose an American way of life on the French, nor is the French nationalist trying to impose a French way of life on the American. We'll all fuck off to our respective countries and do our own thing.
Taken further I think we have to acknowledge that there are going to be cultural and religious differences within a nation as big as America, and that we'll all be able to fuck off to our respective areas and do our own thing. Maybe a Mormon wants to live somewhere where alcohol and caffeine are banned. Maybe a Catholic wants to live somewhere were their public schools can instill Catholic values. Maybe an atheist wants to live somewhere that places less of an emphasis on religious faith in day to day life.
This IMO is something we should fight for, and "cultural libertarianism" as defined in that article will not allow it.
I agree people should be allowed to keep to themselves as long as their beliefs do not interfere with each other.
We still have this problem though...
That is "cultural libertarianism", which will not allow (eg.) a public school in a Catholic town to teach Catholocism because what if there's a Muslim family who is made uncomfortable by it.
"Free association" says "this is a Catholic town, and we teach Catholicism in our schools: no Muslims. Muslim town is over there"
Ban and restrict it how? That's a question I would want answered before I ever agreed to any tenets.
This is a bullshit term used by hypocritical conservatives trying to square the circle.
ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM.
There is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. You say you want to ban abortion and gay marriage. But it doesn't end there. It never ends there. You inevitably go Jack Fucking Thompson. You go after vidya, magic cards, D&D, and eventually even deffmetal.
THIRTY FUCKING YEARS I'VE LISTENED TO YOUR SIDE'S LIES. YOU KEEP TRYING TO WEASEL IN AND TAKE OUR LABEL BECAUSE YOU NEED OUR VOTES. BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT WE BELIEVE IN AND WE WILL NEVER BE MORE THAN ALLIES OF CONVENIENCE.
I'm willing to side with social conservatives against FUCKING COMMUNISTS. But don't call yourselves libertarian, cuz anyone who wants to ban shit is no libertarian.
One of the easiest ways to spot a leftist doing the "hey there fellow Gamergate", is if they complain about Jack Thompson.
Jack Thompson literally never got anything accomplished. He didn't matter. But leftists whine about him incessantly, just like they whine about anyone else who commits the grievous crime of disagreeing with them. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore came very close to getting Grand Theft Auto banned and game mods functionally outlawed, but you never hear a peep about that from the likes of you.
For leftists, the narrative always, always comes first. You're a great example of that.
In the past thirty years, "social conservatism" has not banned or censored video games. You know what has? Leftist principles like "equal" and "sexiss" and "rayciss", those things distort and warp video games fucking constantly. They even try to retroactively ruin games like Beamdog with their "enhanced editions" of BG2 and so on. One side of politics is a real problem, and the other is a paper tiger that only leftards whine about.
But here you are, so very, very upset. Not about the things that are actually a problem. But about Jack Thompson.
Not only does that say a LOT about you, it also illustrates exactly why so called "libertarians" should not be considered as allies.
The only reason you think they're not on your side is because you're so fixated on abortion and gay marriage that the entirety of politics in your eyes becomes a left-right line between the degenerate and the virtuous.
From my perspective, the only difference between a social conservative and an authoritarian democrat is tax policy.
And I'm on the side of the social conservatives only because they don't want to tax me.
YES. Absolutely correct. We are not ideological allies. We're frenemies.
THE ONLY THINGS YOU AND I HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT WE BOTH WANT LOWER TAXES BY CUTTING SPENDING, WE BOTH WANT TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST, AND WE BOTH WANT TO BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
That's it.
Because they're both child eating demon worshippers. I actually have, you know, morals.
The whole point is to show exactly what "your" perspective is. It's not materially different at all from the vile degeneracy of the left. You have no problem with moral wrongs, so long as those committing them are willing to tolerate the moral wrongs YOU want to engage in.
Yes.
That is literally the foundational principle of libertarianism.
So stop trying to steal our word.
Duh.
I'm not. I think you're a ridiculous talking monkey, that none of you are reliable as allies and that your word is a plaything for children.
Looks like he's found someone else to argue with about this. Have "fun"...
Well, you're not OP, and OP is with his "cultural libertarianism".
So don't step between OP and me when you have nothing to contribute to the argument I'm raising. My beef is with his choice of words.
This is a public forum, dingus. I'll criticize who I please, especially when both of you are being ridiculous fighting over a word that represents a wholly unviable political philosophy.
Collectivism is the only way to gather enough power to combat their collective you goof.