> Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political ideology.
Just because a person might agree with a right-libertarian on a specific point, doesn't mean they now have to adopt everything about their ideology or apply it in everything without regard to differences in the topics at hand.
> Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners.
Are you sure they fail to recognize them? or perhaps they do to an extent, but they see there are other points to consider regarding guns specifically, points that perhaps they value more than the recognition of property rights on this specific subject.
> This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with emotions and fury.
It very much is arbitrary, and I think that's fine. Gun control is not exactly the same problem as the abortion controversy, though they have some similar aspects. In the case of gun control, some people will feel that unlimited recognition of property rights with regards to guns would lead to public safety issues. Different people will want to stand on different points of that scale, valuing property rights vs public safety.
I think this can be defended with ideas. The emotions and fury come from people not being able to articulate their ideas, or their not understanding the ideas of others, or perhaps having mutual understanding but seeing that they're a minority in how they're affected by proposed policies that everyone else seems to agree on. It doesn't mean there's lack of ideas. Ideas and emotions/fury are 2 different things. You can't use them for the same, and are best left mostly ignored, if not taken as an indication that something is lacking in someone's communication.
> If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently.
Well, I think I've stated my point, but to conclude, I don't think respecting property rights necessitates holding them above all else. That a person sees the recognition of property rights on one topic as the most important aspect doesn't mean they now have recognize it as the most important aspect in every other topic.
Every topic involves different aspects whether that's public safety, the property rights of a potential mother with regards to her body, the right to life of a fetus, etc. Every person will arbitrarily value each aspect differently, see the trade-offs that the issue at hand necessitates, and choose their position accordingly.