Libertarianism is a wide ranging thing. In Ameria there’s two main schools - Libertarian conservatism (or ‘non-legit’ in that phrasing)and classical liberalism (or ‘legit’ in the terms used above). There are other stands (right wing libertarianism for example), but they’re not what we’re talking about here.
I think Kane falls more into classical liberalism which is effectively a slightly more extreme version of your Nick Cleggs and David Camerons - that while liberty is a priority, public order comes first - so the state necessarily needs to curb some of your individual rights for the benefit of everyone. In particular, classical liberalism focuses on economic rights - not intervening in business/the markets - and withdrawing state aid - the idea that things like social security create dependency on the state and that people are more likely to pull themselves up if you don’t give them handouts.
Classical liberals tend to be in favour of a government that:
- protects individual rights and provides services that cannot be provided in a free market.
- provides common national defence to provide protection against foreign invaders.
- creates laws that provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens.
- Builds and maintains necessary public institutions.
- implements public works that include a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, railways, communications etc.
On the political spectrum, classical liberals tend right-wing economically, but left-wing socially. (compare/contrast to the current Conservative/Republican parties, which are both right-wing economically and socially).
Libertarian conservatives will tend to agree on economic terms with classical-liberals (although some will argue more strongly for minimising the state’s role or removing it altogether), but they also believe strongly in social Conservatism. This brings in an inherent tension in their beliefs as they will usually believe that the traditional family unit should be defended over other lifestyles, and that those who don’t conform to their ideas of social norms (be they immigrants, LGBTQI+, political opponents etc) should be discriminated against.
They often lean on the US constitution (or in the UK the magna carta) to defend their right to perform harmful acts towards others. A classical liberal would argue that this falls foul of one of the core values of most libertarians: the non-aggression principle.
