Libertarian "Buts" and "former libertarians"

I've written before about "libertarian, buts" and "former libertarians". I've always been skeptical of either claim. If you make exceptions you might be "libertarian-leaning", but I don't believe you are libertarian. And if you claim to be a "former libertarian" I have my doubts you ever understood the concept in the first place if you can be swayed to abandon it. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they aren't being completely honest.

So many people seem to feel it's trendy or edgy to call themselves libertarian, but... they like to hang on to certain exceptions. This seems to explain "former libertarians" as well. They are fine with life, liberty, and property until they find an exception-- an excuse for archation-- they value more. They can even get creative in justifying their exceptions.

Someone may be a libertarian "but" they support police because they can't imagine having to take responsibility for defending their own rights and they imagine that's what cops do.

They may call themselves libertarian while demanding government schools be reopened.

They may have been a libertarian until they decided "Black Lives Matter" more than other lives, and are willing to use the political means to impose their belief on society through legislation.

Some may be libertarian, except that they lust to take part in whichever current witch hunt allows them to fantasize about revenge and murder (which they'll characterize as "justice").

Or maybe they were libertarian until they decided "climate change" was a big enough threat, with no way to handle it, so now they support governments dictating "climate policy".

Don't accept a "but". You're better than that.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.