Libertarians cover half of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum, so it sounds like your definition of "libertarian" is what many libertarians might call "libertarian extremist". Do you think it's fair to say that you're deep into that end of the spectrum?
I just see no justification for justifying small amounts of cancer and pretending it's necessary or good. If that's "extreme", so be it.
If we take the extreme end point of authoritarianism as 'being authoritarian' and the extreme end point of libertarianism as 'being libertarian', then what would you say the people in between are? (Don't just say "they're wrong").
If they're somewhere between the midway point (centre) and the libertarian extreme, I can understand that they may identify themselves as libertarian. But is there a point where they're centrist rather than libertarian? If so, where is it?
Any amount of belief in governing others with "laws" is statism. There can be more or less, obviously, but even "slightly statist" is still statist. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that I don't believe there's any excuse for it, and I won't do it.
I know a lot of "libertarians" who only have one tiny "but"- and they are statists who are almost libertarian. If this is what a person truly believes, why do they get so upset at having it noticed by others? Unless, deep down, they know they are wrong for protecting that one favored nodule of cancer.
Slightly statist is still statist and slightly libertarian is still libertarian. Is that what you’re saying?
Slightly libertarian is still statist,
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @dullhawk to be original material and upvoted(1.5%) it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!