So you're saying you like the government off you're back unless its something you favor, then it should be a federal law?

I'm not being an *******, or intentionally misreading that - thats how it reads.

To be fair could the same not be said for almost all political ideologies?

For example?

People in general tend to favor laws that appeal to their beliefs and are against laws that are counter to it. Unless you're an anarchist I'm sure you're in favor of some form of government and back its interference on issues you think they should be involve themselves with. I hope I've misinterpreted your post because I don't see the sense in criticising someone for being in favor of a system that agrees with their beliefs.

Eh? The only thing I said on the subject on Federalism was, "In regards to Federalism (or states rights, if you prefer), there's difference on opinion within the movement on whether some social issues (abortion, drug war, gay marriage) should be devolved to local authorities or settled on a Federal level. "

Unless you're implying tariffs & immigration policy are not within the domain of the Federal Governmetn?

Most governing systems either have one (or more) person (people) at the top making decisions that hold for everyone in the country (fascism, communism), or go by a "majority rules" system (democracy). Each system makes no real attempt to hide the fact that individual freedom is restricted by the overall opinion of the populace. Everyone has the right to food, services etc etc, provided they have the money, which means working, and they also have to pay taxes; they can't "opt out" of anything. The concept of Libertarianism is very different, and hip hip bunny hop described Paleo-conservatism as being rather similar to Libertarianism, with a few crucial differences.

Libertarianism basically has two rights: The right of self ownership, and the right of ownership in general. What it amounts to is that noone has the right to tell you what to do, and neither do you have the right to tell them what to do, unless both sign a contract to that effect. Similarly, with ownership, you have the right to decide how you use what you own, provided it doesn't affect the belongings of another, anything that does is again, subject to contract. You can build any system from fundamental Libertarianism, the difference is that the concept of being born into certain obligations doesn't exist - everyone has the right to choose whether they will or will not conform to society, and if they want they can go off and have their own self-sufficient commune with totally different laws, that's their choice. In short, no meddling without permission in the lives of others.

What hip hop bunny hop seems to be saying, is that paleo-conservative views have much in common with this, except in the matter of Social Issues, namely that they feels that everyone has a right to live however they want, unless it offends their image of how people should live, which doesn't make much sense to me, and seemingly Big3 either; surely if you have no qualms with forcing minorities into a way of life they don't agree with, you are compromising the fundamental reasons for a libertarian-like governing system? How would you feel if someone decided that men shouldn't be allowed outside unshaven, or something equally ridiculous? People have right to be gay if they want to, and someone having an abortion in a different state to you is hardly going to have a major effect on your life... it's just over-controlling, incredibly arrogant, and goes by the assumption that the "majority" know what the "best" way to live is.


Do correct me if I'm wrong, that's just the way it's coming across.

Oh ok I see where you're coming from, but while they may agree with libertarians on certain issues they don't share the same philosophy. They're more a reaction to neocons being far too leftist for the conservative name, they're the conservatives of the conservatives if you will.

Ideology is a set of beliefs. Beliefs are not always Ideology.

Well, neo-cons were described as, by someone stated whom I'm too lazy to look up right now, "liberals mugged by reality". Meaning, they were New Deal Democrats upset by the cultural changes of the 60s (and later); they still maintained support for the majority of New Deal programs & the expansive powers of the Federal Government, as well as the highly interventionist foreign policy of FDR.

In recent policy, we've seen this work out in a few ways. Paleo's, in terms of Foreign Policy, were highly critical of Iraq 1 & 2, Clinton's intervention in Serbia on behalf of Kosovo, our sprawling military bases, etc.. Economically, Paleos opposed NAFTA (as well as all free trade agreements), medicare part D, etc.

Please, do keep in mind there's no unity on the issue of whether these should be solved on the Federal or State level. Further, the issue of being anti-immigrant and anti-free trade is a huge, radical departure from Libertarian thinking on these subjects.

Anyways, in regards to your question; what you're hitting on is the difference between Paleoconservatism's pragmatism(*1) and Libertarianism's idealism. This shouldn't be surprising, as Paleo's ideological roots would be best defined as pre-Enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whereas Libertarianism is squarely in the Englightenment mold. Paleos, as i hope is clear by now, embrace a very Burkean form of Conservatism.

*1 - I say "pragmatism", because it's the closest approximation of what I mean; I'm not referring to Bentham's philosophy.

Hmmm, ok. I'll need to think about that for a while to see how it pans out, but I think I understand where you're coming from.