(via The Agitator) Neither paleo nor neo, Matthew Hogan describes a Third Way for libertarians….

So you can quickly tell your friends, from your not-friends???

John Venlet: Can we not just be men with like minded ideas of liberty and sovereign individuality?

Sure, but what do you call such Men?

John Venlet: Even if some of your political ideologies differ in regards to the size of government, as compared to other labeled individuals, does the group label offer you any kind of safety, or is it just a need to belong that is being fulfilled by the label?

A label is just a symbol for the underlying definition, but if you donâ??t comprehend the label and its definition, then how are you suppose to communicate with other individuals (like-minded or otherwise)?

John Venlet: The group mentality, in most instances, only provides a bludgeon to use against other groups.

I donâ??t see where having something in common with someone else is always a bad thing? For starters Iâ??d say it was impossible to communicate with someone if you have absolutely nothing in common with them.

“I never agree with anyone on everything.”

I, on the other hand, use the label libertarian because it is the shortest and easiest explaination of my basic ideals. Of course I find that most folks don’t even know what that seemingly basic affiliation is, so why would I further confuse them with a prefix?

Principles are what matter. Leave the fashions for twits and other un-serious people.

Not bound by authoritarianism sounds to me like anti-hierarchical, which is the same as pro-equality, which is the same as pro-conformity, which is the same as pro-authoritarianism.

But that would certainly explain why “they are socializing everything under the sun.”

Clearly ‘liberals’ are not liberal when they support socializing everything under the sun.

Iâ??m curious as to your precise definition of the term â??liberalâ? Mr. Balko?

I am not sure I would classify Lincoln’s actions as “evil” considering the historical context, the unresolved nature of the status of the western territories (the South did march on western territories (New Mexico included) and seize it as a new part of the Confederacy, something probably feared would happen following secession), and the possible international ramifications of an independent Confederacy vis-a-vis alliance/ties with England etc etc etc. But I would still put it in the unconstitutional and therefore “wrong” camp.

As for national defense and border control: as long as other nations, and non-state actors, are not as liberal (in the classical sense) as we are, we must defend against any designs they may have to do us harm. When we all live in a utopian libertarian world we will not need such things, but right now we do not.

And as per our lack of a pundit, like Sullum or a Raimondo, I suggest we do have one. His name is Balko.