Skinner and company own the site and they get to make the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't use the site.

Explain

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

They are well entrenched in the R. party. In the states and districts they represent, they have won a majority of voters. Randian ideas have infiltrated the legal profession, judiciary, and corporate management.

I am think specifically of Federalist Societies in law schools and of Randian proponents like Paul Ryan. Tea baggers may back these libertarians, but the psuedo-intellectuals who advance these ideas are far more dangerous than the garden variety racist.

Rand Paul doesn't advocate drug decriminalization or freedom to choose abortion?

The Libertarian Party Platform:
http://www.lp.org/platform

Social issues and issues of war and peace are secondary .... Their main think tank is funded by Koch money, their supporters are mainly states rights nut-jobs -- I'm not deluded enough to think anything progressive would come from them.

afraid?

Being a nihilist is far from being a progressive... so comparing the two, or implying that libertarians are, in fact, more progressive is rubbish.

While Libertarians have far more sway over policy makers than any other third party(in my opinion), do you think they would actually put those few liberal positions ahead of all the severely draconian conservative economic positions that, once again in my opinion, are at the heart of the party? My answer is no, and that's why they should be viewed as a threat.

“I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake," Paul explained. "There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married and they quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives."
...
"States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions," Paul said. "I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/rand-paul-marijuana_n_2945307.html

Hence Bill Maher's definition of Libertarian: A Republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

Of course, today's libertarians are invariably hypocrites, who don't believe in the liberty of women or minorities, or people who want a clean, healthy environment. They think there should be no hate crime legislation or environmental regulation. They think that should be dealt with by "social pressure" and the "free market," as that idiotic platform you cite states.

Democrats have been saying similar for decades but our "leaders" have been following the Nixon model in regards to "the war on drugs".

So, instead of ceding the issue to a Republican who is sporting faux libertarian clothing, why aren't Democrats taking the lead?

Of course we should legalize pot. Why don't you do an OP on that instead of trying to gloss over the scam Libertarians are pulling?

Certainly, the tide has turned in this U.S. And certainly the vast majority of Democrats support it... So why are our Democratic reps ceding this issue to the Libertarians?

if you want democrats to support it than call on them, organize protests, write letters, primary non supporters or whatever else to get their support.

that has nothing to do with people wanting to call out the libertarians on what they are going to do.

But it is still not clear if Dem soccer moms will go for it. Pot still is not decriminalized in CA. I think oncr it id decriminalized in CA and NY, the rest of the country will follow.

You seems to acknowledge pot decriminalization is an enticing issue for many Dem voters. The GOP knows that too. Hence their Libertarian dog and pony show to strip away Dem pot voters.

Exactly. So, instead of railing against libertarians, make your Dem reps step up to the plate.

I absolutely do not... DO NOT... want liberals to be drawn into the Republican party over an issue like pot.

And yet, it is happening.

Of course, the libertarian interest in these notions has nothing to do with social conditions or women's control over their own bodies. it's because libertarians what to fuck while high without worrying about a paternity suit for "forgetting" a condom.

stance on certain issues but wouldn't dream of buying into the rest of their ideology.

I've worked in coalition with big "L" Libertarians (actual party members) in San Francisco on two issues. Marriage equality and medical marijuana.

On both issues, their organization was competent and talented. Their members intelligent and presented arguments compelling.

I have also worked with homophobic and misogynist clergy on homeless issues. Sometimes the issue is bigger than its parts.

We're talking about people, ultimately, aren't we? You can't chop a person's ideology into little bits and take some and pretend the others aren't there. it all comes as a package with that person. So sure, a libertarian might be for drug legalization, good for him. he's also for ending WIC, smashing unions, closing public schools, and otherwise dismantling the whole of society so that htye can live in what htye think will be a wonderland of self-interested utter independence where they - Randian supermen one and all - will reign supreme.

But yes, very nice, they can support lighting a bud and tying a knot, too. Congratulations on their being adequate on two subjects. Too bad their stance on everything else would make Jack Merridew go "woah, wait a minute"

Not really my job to pick names for them.

Most of them are social conservatives and "neo-liberal" economically. Their goal is capitalism free from regulation of any kind. They consider basic human compassion to be a weakness.

The most unabashed Randians are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan. Others are among the most problematic state governors: Kasick, Walker, LaPage, Christie, that guy in FL.

The true libertarians are punching bags in most debates, even in the back country.

Regardless, I have to clarify, these are RW libertarians. We even have LW libertarians in the US Senate, who ran as Democrats. You might want to find out what makes the three RW libertarians in the senate so different from the three or four LW libertarians. My mistake, I forgot the two indies.

of minorities and youth and marajuana users to his lair. Elections are won or lost bt a small percentage.

If you disagree, please point out where the article is incorrect.

without addressing the issue at hand.

"Don't participate in anti-NSA protests because those scary libertarians are involved. Stay at home, say nothing because of those libertarians!'

So reminds me of the McCarthy era.

It describes exactly how the Koch Libertarians in the GOP are duping lefties to join them so they can strip away just enough Dem votes to win elections. And you are ignoring that.

You've wasted enough of my time. It is clear you are not here for an honest discussion. You're certainly not here because you "want to know" something.

over decades of time. The States that elect Republicans have the same horrible laws they always had. Blue States make medical marijuana programs, decriminalize or legalize. Democrats in those States do that. Why the fuck would people in Washington be attracted to Libertarians over marijuana? Washington is Democratic and legalized pot fully, Kentucky and Texas elect Pauls and lock people up for a joint.
It is absurd. Jerry Brown signed the first decriminalization of pot in the 70's. A Democrat literally leading the way. Other Democrats had advocated that action including Harvey Milk. No Republicans advocated that action.
The Blue Solid States have the most liberal marijuana policies.
The article is Reefer Madness silly stuff. Insipid, out of date thinking.

of Americans favor legal marijuana and because mass regions of the nation have already enacted decriminalization over the last 40 years, 40. Because of the many successful medical marijuana programs in various State. Because all of this was accomplished with by well informed activists working with Democratic governments and politicians. Only Democratic States have gone forward with reforms. No Republican has ever openly advocated legal marijuana, but many Democrats have.
This idea of yours that 'low information stoners' might be fooled by some Kentucky Republican because he says 'marijuana' is an idea from the misty past. It is in fact hilarious, dated, insipid thinking. Sorry, it just is.

Libertarians in general use drug legalization as an issue to entice young converts. They have it in their party platform and the Dems don't.

I absolutely agree with you that it is the Dems who have actually enacted decriminalization measures for pot, not Republicans, and sure as hell not Libertarians. But working people who fall for Libertarianism thinking it promotes liberty are idiots, so they are easily swayed into believing Libertarian propaganda.

open to Republicans by being too conservative themselves but out here 'libertarians' a minority of wack jobs holding protests on April 15th. To spend much time talking about them is pointless.
I don't share your contempt for 'working people' and don't think they are idiots. I think Republicans are idiots. There are lots of them.
People in the marijuana movement are among the most informed and activist you can find, which is why they keep having success. The idea that they are idiots who can't tell a bigoted Republican from a liberal if they pass them a joint is insipid, dated thinking. It is not supported by evidence.

Exhibit A: Red states.

I do not have "contempt for working people." That is an offensive and incorrect assertion on your part. I am a working person. I respect and am protective of working people. That is why I find it hard to ignore Libertarian and Republican propaganda designed to screw working people. I do believe any working person (or ANYONE other than the 1%) who votes Libertarian or Republican is voting against their own interest and is being idiot. Working people in particular who fall for Libertarian or Republican propaganda are just signing themselves up to be corporate serfs, unprotected by government. Please explain how I am wrong about that.

want to light up a joint or not pay taxes or whatnot.

It's all about those tiny percentages in the middle. That wins or loses most elections.

accept Libertarians are more dangerous than ever.

The OP poster's sig line states: "I won't rest until there is a L(l)ibertarian boogyman under every DUer's bed."

Seems to me the poster is here to disrupt or push Libertarianism. And apparently that does not get you hidden here on DU.

One thing seems pretty clear, the OP does not really want to know why we fear Libertarians, judging by how the OP ignored your points.

it is the entire damn Republican Party that is the menace.

We are missing the forest for the trees.

Stop trying to minimize what the GOP is trying to do with its Libertarian wing.

Of course the entire GOP is a menace. But Libertarians are part of the GOP. They are the Trojan Horse the GOP is using to try to kill just enough to Dem votes to win elections.

I agree with the OP to a point. She is correct in her judgement that it's become a boogeyman.

We have LW libertarians too. And civil libertarians are...oops what's that word? Libertarians. You are confusing economic libertarians with the whole enchilada. I should, and I am not, one bit, surprised by this any longer.

Libertarians actually span from the far right to the far left, and at times they even join hands in some issues, civil liberties is one of them.

Dems believe in civil liberties. Wyden is a strong advocate for them, but he is very much a progressive Democrat, and has never espoused Libertarian philosophy to my knowledge or proclaimed to be a Libertarian. He is very much a big government Democrat, which I am quite happy with. http://www.wyden.senate.gov/

The OP is not correct, and appears to be flogging her bogeyman argument just to stir shit and get clicks.

There is a reason why the third largest party in the US is going nowhere. If you think the Democratic Party has a big tent policy, well, the Libertarian party of the US, the third largest party mind you (it's a real party) makes the dems look like a closed in party.

Within their ranks they have all types of libertarians. Granted, the Ron Paul types are loud, but hardly alone.

The term libertarian does not necessarily only mean what you think it does. A basic understanding of the history of the US and Libertarian though starting with Walden Pond helps.

The OP is very correct. It is a boogeyman. FYI, there are Left Wing economic libertarians who are far less radical than their RW brethren, gasp they believe humans should be free to achieve their potential, true and all, but they also believe the market needs some regulation.

LW civil libertarians have little differences from their RW pals, understanding that there is government over reach. And yes, somebody like Senator Ron Wyden is a left wing civil libertarian



Oh and I forgot to add, classic liberalism, and even more modern versions of it have many elements of LW libertarian though, gasp, so does progressivism. You identified one of the basic elements of it, gasp, civil liberties.

There are others. Libertarian is not a four letter word. It includes more than just your Ron Paul's and Randian types. It takes knowing quite a bit of political theory. You know what? We need more, not less, left wing Libertarians in the halls of legislatures every were. I am talking philosophy here, not a political label.

Instead of going fss, you should seriously look this up.

Here, I will even get you started.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/11/the-distinctiveness-of-left-libertarianism/

I prefer wonky debate. This does not help. Reason 10000000000 why I no longer post analysis here.

From that blog you cite to:
"Left-libertarians share with other leftists the awareness that there are predictable winners and losers in society and that being sorted into the two camps isn’t primarily a matter of luck or skill. But left-libertarians emphasize that it’s not a consequence of market exchange, either: it’s a reflection of state-committed, state-threatened, and state-tolerated aggression. As long as there’s a state apparatus in place, the wealthy can capture it, using it to gain power and more wealth, while the politically powerful can use it to acquire wealth and more power. The ruling class—made up of wealthy people empowered by the state, together with high-level state functionaries—is defined by its relationship with the state, its essential enabler. Opposing this class thus means opposing the state."

The problem with getting rid of the state is then NOTHING is standing between you and the rich and powerful. That is why the Kochs love Libertarianism. No credible progressive that I am aware of is a Libertarian. Libertarians think government should have no power. Of course, neutering government allows the the rich to abuse working people and the environment, without recourse by their victims and unfettered by regulators. Yeah, they don't want the government storing your meta data. But they are fine with you being a corporation's serf. Fuck that. Fuck Ron Paul.

Oh, and Ron Wyden is not a left wing civil Libertarian. He is a liberal. You can call him the Easter Bunny, but that does not make it so. Cite me a link that quotes Wyden as saying he is a Libertarian. You are confusing believing in civil liberties with Libertarianism. It is not the same. Civil liberties need a strong government to enforce them, otherwise civil liberties do not exist for the poor and weak. Enforcing civil liberties and environmental regulations is not "Authoritarian." It is enforcing the will of the people against the powerful few. Enough with the bullshit Libertarian propaganda.

I cede the terrain to you, even when I know you missed the point.

Have at it, have the last word.

(Sun seeker also missed on purpose from same blog redistribution of wealth)

Your blogger would have wealth redistribution dependent on running to the courthouse, an insanely inefficient and ineffective process. How the fuck is some poor person going to hire a good lawyer to do that? Ever try to sue a rich person? Unless the person suing the rich bastard is also rich---or the government---they simply don't have the resources to win in that paper war. And under Libertarianism, there would be no laws allowing for a redistribution of wealth anyway, so you would have no case. Under no Libertarian utopia would a worker have a right to sue a corporation for a share of its profits. That blogger is an idiot. Or a Koch troll.

You bitch about how no one here will discuss policy with you, but when someone does, you cut and run.

So what about that distribution of wealth? Which LW libertarians believe in. Never mind, you missed the point by light years. You believe, it's a belief, that all libertarians are Right Wing, wrong. You also believe that just because somebody carries a party label, they are necessarily not the political label you ascribe to those you consider mortal enemies, and the narrow aspect of the ideology you accept as real. Narrow is the key word.

And no, what you did does not pass for debate. It passes for many other things, but policy debate it is not.

As I said, that is impossible to do with hyper partisans, on both sides. As you are obviously missing, I am not hyper partisan. I accept there is more to political labels than what you define as.

Have an excellent day. And please, do yourself a favor and go look up debate.

Have a wonderful day, please proceed.

I explained why it does not. You refuse to explain why I am wrong, only saying I missed the point, albeit you said it in bold letters, LOL. For someone who bitches about not getting enough policy debate, you sure have an aversion to it.

Second, what you are doing, again, does not for debate pass.

This is not debate. It is, on the other hand, a classic projection/personal attack

Third, while I share some agreement with LW libertarians, gasp, I am not one. Well, not beyond the limited civil liberties, war on drugs rubric.

Fourth, the exercise was to point out that the very limited, boogeyman scenario preferred by hyper partisans misses whole swaths of yes, democratic, liberal, classic liberal (there is a difference) and modern progressive though. (Classic progressivism misses some critical points) I might add the Green Party and social democrats.


Translation, while nice and fat, that worm at the end of the hook is all but attractive there was a day I wasted my time. I no longer do. I have real policy discussions in real life with gasp, people who understand history, American political theory, and are not hyper partisans. The web is no longer a place for it. It used to.

You complain that you have no time to explain it, but apparently you do have time to go on for paragraphs insulting me and DU.

You'll be in the dreaded iggy list soon.

Thanks...

I will repeat, personal attacks do not debate make.

but less government, less of a safety nets for the poor, children and the elderly, less regulations for business and less corporate taxes then they are just republicans who are even more selfish than usual.

Though this is why most RW libertarians run as Republicans. They know Libertarians have somewhere close to zero chances of getting elected for national office.

I wish people started by reading things like Walden Pond, the foundational book of the 19th century movement and philosophy instead of trying hard to confuse the RW types with the left wing types and call them the same.

That is a nice starting point.

Very basic political theory also helps.

For the record, greens are liberals are fellow travelers of LW libertarians. In fact, more than a few run as Democrats, for the same reasons RW Libertarians run as Republicans

What do they say, specifically that appeals to minorities?

What do they say, specifically that appeals to youth?

What do they say, specifically that appeals to pot smokers?

Of course, the don't intend to do that. They just want to decriminalize corporations stealing from people and killing our environment. But the low information stoners they draw in don't see that.

not to mention the two that have already gone fully legal. Oregon was the first State to decriminalize marijuana and that happened in 1973. 40 year ago. The States that have reformed marijuana laws are Democratic States. The States that elect Republicans have not done so. The Paul States of TX and KY are among the worst in the nation.
The marijuana movement is informed, organized and effective as one can see by all the recent victories. Your characterization of people as 'low information' stoners is not supported by the realities of the movement and the politics of that movement.

It's not the libertarian vote itself, it's losing about 10% of the party.

Gotta agree with you, there.

who want to dismantle social security, medicare, medicaid and the public education system?

Fuck Ron Paul and all his fucking cheerleaders.

spectrum who have no influence whatsoever.

Republicans want to dismantle social security, medicare, medicaid and the public education system.

Focus on them.

The Republican Party has been trying to dismantle FDR democrat programs for decades.

Why create a new boogy man when the actual one is in our own back yard?

It seems we are giving the Republican Party a pass by focusing on an insignificant party.

you started the thread about libertarians which is why they are being named on here.

They are two distinct ideologies.

is part of the party.

not everyone in the republican party is religious but that doesn't mean religion isn't a part of the makeup of the party.

And yes, the Libertarian wing has co-opted, or have been co-opted (depending on your point of view) by the Tea Party...

- Republicans
- Libertarians
- Libertarians who pretend to be Republicans
- Libertarians who pretend to be Democrats.

The Libertarians who pretend to be Democrats are the most dangerous IMO.

A lot of Paulites pretend to be from the left and its important to squash them like cockroaches. Little fuckers are hard to kill, but it must be done.

where it intersects with liberal ideals while downplaying the (many) areas where they diverge, and then playing them up as people we should work with and embrace because LOOK AT THESE AREAS WHERE WE AGREE! And then mocking the people who bring up those many, many, dangerous areas where the ideologies diverge, because they're such a tiny insignificant voting block. Nothing to be afraid of, right?

That would be my thought, anyway.

It's not as thought they are quiet about it. They are blabbing all over the place.

But that's easy enough to downplay, because OBAMA NSA SPYING NAZI HITLER LEGALIZE WEED ACA RATE INCREASE! and there are people dumb enough to buy into the fear-mongering without looking at the whole picture. Libertarianism is Faux News with a joint. That's all it is. Plenty there for any intelligent person to be afraid of.

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

...Voted NO on sending aid to Katrina victims.

"Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast

..."Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

And when that small group pushes a poisonous economic and political philosophy, I'll fight them as much as the Rethugs.

They vote Republican. Their spokesmen tend to be articulate and vocal, and are capable of taking up a lot of air time if allowed to speak at Democratic events. Do not be fooled by this. They are not our friends -- and did I mention they vote Republican?

I'm not "afraid" of libertarians -- just kind of disgusted and politically cautious after meeting my first one over 30 years ago.

There is a group of right-wingers ("centrists&quot here on DU that likes to smear progressive people by calling them libertarians. Some of them have been banned, but some remain.

Libertarians aren't a huge problem in the US. They are not a relevant political force.

on the critical issues of civil liberties, the surveillance state and the police state, and the endless bloody wars of empire that are bleeding this country to death. Even though the libertarians are a fringe, extremist party that would totally eliminate the social safety nets if they ever gained any power, they commit the grave sin of reminding the electorate of Democratic betrayals on these issues.

The two corporate parties do not want to talk about the wars, the police state, and the surveillance state. They want to narrow the scope of the debate so that these things are a given and we merely battle over the two corporate versions of policy that are offered to us. That is the only way the "lesser of two evils" game can successfully be played. But liberals AND Libertarians persist in bringing them up.

Of course, the answer to this problem would be simple for Democrats. All they need to do is
Become the party *against* surveillance and the police state; *against* assaults on whistleblowers, journalists, and the Constitution; *against* more warmongering; and for *increasing* rather than cutting social safety nets.

It is outrageous that corporate Democrats are reduced to even caring about the messaging of a fringe party, just because they cannot tear themselves away from their corrupt corporate Masters to own the issues they should own.

K&R

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

.... (their economic ideas that is) and that is because a lot of the 1% ers are libertarian in belief, you know the John Galt made it all by themselves deludinoids.

I've got a couple of GOP friends who swear they've never heard of George W. Bush and insist they're "Libertarians," but they vote Republican every time. They couldn't name an actual Libertarian candidate if they tripped over him. They're just passively acknowledging how much the GOP had screwed things up, but could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.

Ironically, I live in a *very* libertarian-heavy area, relatively speaking (even before it was trendy and hip), and those two real ones I've met lived in far-off states...

The problem with the Libertarians is they made sort of a devil's deal by letting themselves get co-opted by disaffected republicans, Alex Jones crazies and the Paul cult crowd in the name of boosting their numbers and name recognition...

I remember when the Bush era had driven the GOP approval rating so low that regular people were *ashamed* to admit they were republicans, even in red districts...So, so many defected to the libertarian party, if for no other reason than their stances on taxes and completely unregulated markets...And these legions of single issue loons on TV and online calling themselves "libertarian" when their politics was maybe 10% libertarian/90% republican pretty much diluted their brand into oblivion...

The old libertarian party had some appeal to me (I am completely libertarian on social issues, but not fiscal), but now they're aren't much good for anyone with the nutbars in charge...

I still fail to understand why the OP is throwing the 'scared' word around; I heartily welcome any libertarian debate....Maybe he/she has me on ignore...

Libertarianism is just one marketing strategy of the GOP. It's pedantic to worry about what "true" libertarianism is. What matters is how the people who call themselves libertarian these days define themselves. I think that label is appealing to a lot of people who would shy away from aspects of the GOP that seem anti-intellectual or intolerant. You know the type - the ones who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially progressive or liberal. But as someone said upthread, they're still the ones who push the idea that the wealthy are just the winners of a natural selection process; the libertarian label just gives them better cover, they think. So the GOP can push "family values" to some demographics and libertarianism in another market, but it all results in votes for republicans.

and their Endless September flock are allowed to pose themselves as the only alternative to monopolism (which their policies foster)

Really, I'd like to know.

I don't stand down against them because they represent the worst policies possible.

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

belt you with a food stamp cutting drone ...

Your assertion that objections to Libertarianism are founded on ' fear' is without foundation ... we object to the policies of Libertarianism on political and social grounds, not on 'fear', per se ...

One that all the weed in the world won't help with.

But I'm not afraid of them, just aware that they can help elect republicans, in an era in which republicans are often bonkers.

is very telling.

that they could ever ever have here.

Telling indeed.

Please elaborate...

as an insult. And the McCarthy-ist baseless accusations, overt and covert, flung about here regularly against lefty DUers and liberals.

I guess the better question is, why would the "libertarian" flingers on DU expend so much energy of cultivating the "other".

To a man, their most important beliefs are:

1. Don't want to have to pay taxes
2. Wants completely unregulated businesses and industries
3. Unfettered access to guns
4. (In so many words) Freedom to discriminate against whoever, without being called out as racist/sexist/etc.

And these are libertarian party members -- They even tried recruiting me back in the day...My little quickie litmus test on libertarians is where they stand on social issues, and as you guessed, they are usually anti-reproductive rights and anti GLBT marriage...One of them with a completely straight face even tried to defend racial profiling to me back when the Florida Highway Patrol settlement was in the news(!)...

So how did libertarians as a party get so bloody goddamned inconsistent? For years why have they let clowns represent or speak for the party when they clearly were NOT libertarians, save for one or two issues? How do people as batshit insane as Alex Jones or Bob Barr rise so high as prominent voices of the party? Given its current makeup, why on Earth would I want to associate with a party where most of the outspoken voices are crazies, extremists and conspiracy loons?
Why did a party celebrating personal religious freedoms slowly but surely get overcome by fundamentalist Judeo-Christian -only hardliners? Why are modern libertarians so eager to ditch the yoke of government oppression only to happily replace it with a yoke of corporate oppression, and just hope the 'market works itself out?' When did libertarianism start morphing from "Freedom and liberty for all," to "Freedom and liberty for ME, people like me and motherfuck everyone else?"

I can only speak for myself and where I've lived...Maybe the libertarians in your hometown are sane or something...

I just get a perverse pleasure out of winding the Paul cultists up (because at the end of the day they really don't belong on this site) and pointing out their idol has no clothes...

If you want to skip the customary tar-brushing bullshit and have an honest to god, legit discussion of libertarianism and the libertarian party, I'm more than happy to oblige...

EDIT: No response? What are you afraid of? Worried that your core political beliefs can't withstand a little healthy debate??

To varying degrees, every DUer thinks the government needs to have some role in American's daily lives, whether it's just making sure the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breath is clean and healthy, or tracking where we go, who we talk to, and how many calories we take in. Libertarians essentially reject it all (yes, they do have a few exceptions). If you're talking to a libertarian about legalizing pot, you'll probably get along just fine. If you're talking about the government redistributing money based on one's "fair share", I suspect you won't.