Since buddhists are against the use of force, they should be more or less like libertarians. Since, how can one get taxes, wage war or interfere in other people’s lives if one must abstain from the use of violence?
I’d say the Buddhist faith is compatible with libertarianism, and some Buddhists are libertarians.
Most faiths preach peace. It’s when people start practicing and interpreting faith that all of the coercion gets introduced.
In practice Buddhists are not primarily against the use of force, they are against damaging items/persons/animals which have religious significance for them.
Nope, the second jewel of Buddhism is Dharma, which includes non aggression/peace. Not to mention the eight-fold path is almost entirely devoted to peace. Like all religions, peace is a key principle, but this is especially true for Buddhism.
“Hatred is never appeased by hatred. Hatred is only appeased by Love (or, non-enmity). This is an eternal law.”- Bodhicaryavatara
Hence my use of the term “In practice”. The Lamas of Tibet did not seem to defer to the Noble Eight Fold Path when brutally supressing a nation of serfs.
I already addressed that the practice of the religion by men, doesn’t discredit the religion’s core ideals.
Which was not the question posed by the original poster.