Well that’s the thing about how i see it – and maybe I’m wrong about this spectrum idea — it strikes me that an absolute position is likely impossible, compelling one to have *some* stake in the side one is furthest away from, at least a little.
I took it just now to force a 100% libertarian to see the description:
“Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.”
“limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence” would inch it over to the overlapping part, as now there is some “Duty of Care” from a government source.
In fact, I would say that, except for the first line, the rest of it moves it ever closer towards “Duty of Care”.
Example: the very stance of “Government vs civil liberty” sets up two distinct liabilities:
a) The government that *is* established is liable for breaking any of the libertarian rules.
b) the individual libertarian is in principle liable for breaking any of the libertarian guidelines.
They’re distinct because they operate differently for each class of people, one the class of individuals, the other, the class of Government.
What I am curious about is what would bring it even further “off the chart” beyond “forbidden to interfere”. [an example of an enforced forbidden-to-interfere would be the Prime Directive in the Star Trek universe, which ironically is a big government – even militarily enforced directive].