Justin doesn’t understand the difference between morality and legality, or between the personal and the political:
After a week or two of browsing, it doesn’t appear Vox has any understanding of Libertarian political philosophy whatsoever–and neither do the people who are commenting.
Then you need to read a lot more, Justin, and a lot more carefully, because your assertion is demonstrably ludicrous. You’re confusing two things, one individual’s opinion on various, mostly non-political matters and advocacy of the full force of government-imposed law. No matter how deeply you search the archives, I’ll bet you can’t find more than three things that I have advocated that contradict the Libertarian political philosophy, and I have previously made the case for all three of those things being more properly libertarian than the Libertarian position.
As someone else has already pointed out, Confucius was significantly more influential in Chinese culture than Lao Tzu. This should be rather obvious, as only Russia and Japan have cultural traditions less respectful of the individual than China. It’s like complaining that I left out Solzhenitsyn and only took Lenin’s philosophy into account when writing about the Soviet Union.
Justin’s quixotic assertion reminds me of the Libertarian Politics radio guy who is supporting Giuliani for the presidency. It’s almost hard to respond to them because you’re so occupied with wondering precisely what planet they happen to be orbiting.
UPDATE – Out of curiousity, specifically which parts of the Libertarian political philosophy am I missing, Justin? I mean, I can completely understand how my total opposition to NAFTA could be honestly misconstrued as favoring government intervention in the economy, but I’ve been pretty specific regarding why I think a few of the Libertarian stances are demonstrably anti-libertarian.