Like gay Republicans?
They'd seem to be, or should be, a dying breed.

@Jetty

They generally tend to be people that resisted anyone telling them what to do their entire lives. They never liked having to be accountable for their actions at any level. So Libertarianism is a simple way to say, "I do not need to be accountable to my community and my fellow humans. I do not have to share my resources with others, after all it's their fault that they are in the situation they find themselves in, not mine," attitide.

@t1nick Great insight. Thanks.

@David1955

They tend to believe that the mythological ragged individuality exists and it's them. Look up Ayn Rand and Objectivism. It's based on her writings, but they alter her philosophy to justify their self-centeredmess.

America lives in one right now. Notice those roads near where you live that are owned by everyone collectively through our government? Those taxes that you may or may not pay that are taken for everyone and used for everyone through the use of the government? The court system, the military system? All collectively owned by the citizens. Meanwhile, we all buy, sell and trade routinely.

@david75090 Yes, but with certain RULES we buy, sell and trade. Libertarians want there to BE no rules...how's that grab you?

@Jetty, @david75090 I agree, the USA is more socialist than capitalist but definitely a hybrid. I think it is feasible but neither desirable nor efficient. Additionally, there is no such thing as fair in the absolute. Fairness is a matter of perspective and who is judging it (i.e. What is fair to you may not be fair to others).

@Storm1752 There are always rules. It is a question of the applying the rules. What is the capability and how far will one go to ensure others follow the rules. Governments have shown the capability and will to extinguish life in making others follow the rules.

@beenthere America has been an amalgamation of systems since day one but the ignorant don't recognize that. To them, socialist and socialism are dirty words rather than a legitimate part of the system. The problem is caused, mainly, by one political party and their cable news network. They prey on the ignorance of Their Sheep. They keep the anti, fear based, rhetoric going.

William, I sincerely doubt libertarians would approve of partial state ownership of ANYTHING. We're talking compromise, not capitulation, and libertarians are too bad-ass for that.

@Storm1752 I don’t see how anyone could object to a government buying and selling stocks and bonds on the market so long as the government was forbidden to own a controlling share in any one corporation. I am not advocating Cuban style confiscation where the government owns 51% of all businesses.

The management of the government fund would have to be strictly controlled and isolated from government’s regulatory function. Canada funds its pension fund with the stock market, and Alaska has its Permanent Fund, so the idea is not all that far-fetched.

The big hurdle would be to get ahead enough to start the fund. The first step would be a balanced budget, and that seems very elusive.

@Allamanda If the US is so terrible, why don't you move to another country? Where would you move?

@David1955 Yep it is a mess to discribe. I once was told by a prestigious leader of the Libertarian party that it should actually be called the Ultra Liberal Party. It actully was a good point....chew on that! The republicans that claim those traits are usually just moderate conservatives. Not to make the claim that they are just "shills"? As you folks might say.

@Jetty The Libertarians usually want an unrealisticly small government. But just because baseball players and football players like gaderaide does not mean they play the same sport so to speak.

@Jetty Moderate conservatives? Liberal conservatives?
Let's just throw around labels like confetti!
Libertarians are ULTRA-conservative fiscally, ULTRA-liberal socially. It's wacky garbage! It's throwing up your hands and saying, "What the hell! Let's REALLY throw everything we got at the fan and see if anything sticks!"
Will somebody please get serious here?
Libertarians and socialists have WAY too little in common fiscally, and in general just because socialists are more liberal than conservatives (of course) it doesn't mean they want everybody to do whatever they want, no consequences.
It's ludicrous to even entertain the notion a Grand Compromise is even thinkable.

@Storm1752 Libertarians are serious and I think should be taken as seriously as the other parties. I am sure there were many at one time that many thought that it was imposible for anything but a Monarchy to work. Yet here we are. Just because one does not understand something does not mean it is wrong. Lobertarians are not extremist or wackos. They simply have a different opinion of a more ideal system. That does not mean that it is the best, we have yet as a species conducted that experiment.

@David1955 Thats a load of crap. They taste funny when smoked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good to hear.

@Jetty I do not agree that the failure of capitalism to produce an economy that benefits the people, rather than the powers, of a country, is a disruption of the cycle. The reason it doesn't work is greed. It is that simple.

g

@Jetty I do I do not, however, call that a good economy. It is an economy but not a good one. Calling that a good economy is like calling a bullet in the head a good cure for a headache. It did the trick all right; the headache is gone. Isn't the survival of the patient rather basic to the claim of success?

g

Libertine: a man who ignores/flaunts moral principles.
Philistine: one who has no appreciation of culture and the arts.
Care to explain your statement?

@Storm1752 Bourgeois thought fallsi into two camps--Libertine, and Philistine. I.e. pretty stupid, and extremely stupid. In the United States, the Democratic Party represents the Party of the pretty stupid rich people; while the Republican Party represents the extremely stupid rich people.