Your diagram does not make sence because according to that Libertaianism is completely ‘inside’ / intergrated into the yellow Fiscal conservatism (I dont even know what that is!) and yet this yellow portion also accomodates a large portion of moral conservatism which is outside the Libertarian sphere… and thus I must assume is not compatible with Libertarianism… and so I dont see how Libertarianism can be completely inside the yellow sphere. Surely a portion of Libertarianism ought to be outside both the yellow and the red spheres, yet a portion encapsulate part of the yellow, and another portion encapsulate a portion of the red, and another encapuslate a portion of the orange overlap between the yellow and the red???? Thus you ought to draw the Libertarian circle encroaching to whatever degree is proportional to the relitive concensus up where the intersection between the yellow and red spheres meet.
I was hoping my few word were enough but I’m going to have to explain this properly. Later.
For now, consider the following…
If a person approves of recreational drug use they will seek its legalisation irrespective of whether they are motivated by libertarian ideals or not.
If a person disapproves of recreational drug use they will seek its legalisation only if they are motivated by libertarian ideals.
Ok, now this relates to a very important principle …. overlapping concensus. This is important because we can build our free society upon it. I will be doing a blog post on this foundation for a free society, yet for the sake of a short answer to you question… it is not important that different free and equal individuals or groups concent to a just point of law for different personal reasons. The important thing is that they actually agree to support and concent to the law. That they do so… for their own reasons is actually an example of religious liberty in action, and means that the just law is not founded upon any one ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ideology… making the state/ law an extension of any one private moral code/religion….but is reason baced. So I might consent to ending prohibition because I believe in personal soverignty and the separation of church and state (Not allowing religious people to impose their prohibitons on other peaceful people), where as another peaceful person may wish to end prohibition simply because they like to smoke pot and not get arrested for it. We have a concensus on the law. and the Law is pased via ‘the consent of the governed’… that is the only legitimacy that is required to make the Law.
What is the political difference between a libertarian and an immoral fiscal conservative?
What is the political difference between Lindsay Perigo and John Banks?
I’ve put up a diagram to help.
Do you agree that the yellow area exists?
Your diagram does not make sence because according to that Libertaianism is completely ‘inside’ / intergrated into the yellow Fiscal conservatism (I dont even know what that is!) and yet this yellow portion also accomodates a large portion of moral conservatism which is outside the Libertarian sphere… and thus I must assume is not compatible with Libertarianism… and so I dont see how Libertarianism can be completely inside the yellow sphere. Surely a portion of Libertarianism ought to be outside both the yellow and the red spheres, yet a portion encapsulate part of the yellow, and another portion encapsulate a portion of the red, and another encapuslate a portion of the orange overlap between the yellow and the red???? Thus you ought to draw the Libertarian circle encroaching to whatever degree is proportional to the relitive concensus up where the intersection between the yellow and red spheres meet.
I was hoping my few word were enough but I’m going to have to explain this properly. Later.
For now, consider the following…
If a person approves of recreational drug use they will seek its legalisation irrespective of whether they are motivated by libertarian ideals or not.
If a person disapproves of recreational drug use they will seek its legalisation only if they are motivated by libertarian ideals.
Ok, now this relates to a very important principle …. overlapping concensus. This is important because we can build our free society upon it. I will be doing a blog post on this foundation for a free society, yet for the sake of a short answer to you question… it is not important that different free and equal individuals or groups concent to a just point of law for different personal reasons. The important thing is that they actually agree to support and concent to the law. That they do so… for their own reasons is actually an example of religious liberty in action, and means that the just law is not founded upon any one ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ideology… making the state/ law an extension of any one private moral code/religion….but is reason baced. So I might consent to ending prohibition because I believe in personal soverignty and the separation of church and state (Not allowing religious people to impose their prohibitons on other peaceful people), where as another peaceful person may wish to end prohibition simply because they like to smoke pot and not get arrested for it. We have a concensus on the law. and the Law is pased via ‘the consent of the governed’… that is the only legitimacy that is required to make the Law.