In middle age I've come to believe that a lot of libertarian & civil libertarian stances are essentially a dodge -- a strategic deferment of some fundamental fights for a later day. An agreement to bracket disagreements & move ahead anyway. This works up until the day it doesn't. https://twitter.com/adamgurri/status/1333958297205006336

There are some moments, events, personalities, etc. that force you to take a more immediate stand on some fundamental, direct Big Questions of what kind of world we all want to live in. Deferring to the marketplace (of ideas etc.) is a strong move but you can't always make it.

I do this, myself. I say, "I'm socially conservative, but I'm a civil libertarian." This is me agreeing to disagree with you, & offering to bracket some things so we can focus on where we agree. But again, this works until it doesn't.

I think a lot about the @DavidAFrench vs @SohrabAhmari debate, b/c IMO it's a window into what's next for at least two whole quadrants of the political compass. I've come to suspect that every French is a Ahmari who just hasn't found the line that will tip him over, yet.

Ahmari has a vision of the world he wants to live in, & is willing to tolerate liberalism until it truly threatens that vision. French has a similar vision, but doesn't think liberalism /can/ be a threat. French can always get mugged tho, and turn into an Ahmari.

I worry about this b/c I've spent my adulthood in the French camp, but lately when I offer up civil libertarianism in a spirit of "sure we disagree, but let's all just get along", I feel increasingly closer to the moment where I'm told to hand over my wallet & keys.

In an MDiv ministry practicum in grad school, I had an exchange with a gay Unitarian minister. We were talking about the fact that my more conservative church doesn't ordain gays or marry them. I said "people who don't like this just can go to your church! Options FTW!"

His response was that my church was still basically a giant human rights violation, & that its refusal to ordain or marry gays could not & must not stand. Gay kids in my church aren't being served, might kill themselves, etc. So I respond with...

..."Look, my church is straight. As a community we're straight. It's not a collection of people who are mostly straight. It's straight as an identity. It's a straight collective 'we', & you're telling me we have to queer it. We have no choice but to queer the whole enchilada."

"If we do that, then my church won't be what it is. It'll basically be your church. But I don't wanna go to your church, I want to go to mine."

He didn't have an answer for that. None of them did. And ~25 years later I still haven't heard a good answer. It's a real dilemma.

I guess my point is that liberalism has real limits. Secularism has limits. You defer these fights until you can't, and then somebody has to win and the losers get absorbed & give up their identity. France is fighting this same battle right now w/ Islam.

Everybody's liberalism has limits, and it sounds like Reason hasn't found their line, yet. They still haven't come across that thing they're not willing to accommodate in the name of getting along. But this writer who just got booted? She did. She won't be the last on either side

(I just realized in this thread I'm using "libertarianism" and "liberalism" interchangeably. I'm basically using "liberalism" as shorthand for "classical liberalism". This slippage may not be optimal but I think it's defensible.)