Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

[AVG-JOE]

Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak.

This gets to the heart of most misconceptions regarding libertarians. Apart from the occasional asshole (yes, there are asshole libertarians, just like there are asshole liberals and asshole conservatives), libertarians don't endorse ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak. We simply question that the government is the proper tool for the job.

This is where communication usually breaks down, and it is, in large part, our fault for not making our views clear. What libertarians need to understand is that most people don't see a clear distinction between government and society. To them, if "we should" do something - then "government should" do something. Likewise when we say "government should not" do something, they hear "we should not" do something. As much as it may seem obvious to libertarians that government and society aren't the same thing, it's not obvious to the rest of our current culture, and if we're to communicate our message clearly, we have to make this point clear - over and over again if necessary.

Government should do everything that needs to be done that the private sector is unwilling to do. Clearing the streets of the ill and dying poor may just be one of those responsibilities. How compassionately the job is done should be up to the voters, not the insurance lobby.

 

[AVG-JOE]

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

I'm talking about the person who told you libertarianism would allow the strong to prey on the weak.

Which is just a bland talking point, that's happened throughout humanity, happens now, and will happen forever.

If anyone wants to see a group of people taking advantage of those of less means, take a look at what our status quo reps and dems have been doing to the middle class for decades.

It's as bland a talking point as those who complain that government is taking our freedoms. What makes you think the strong wouldn't do the same? It's actually a scarier proposition to be faced with the libertarian dream because, unlike the government, you can't vote THOSE rascals out.

Fair Taxes, Appropriate Regulation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak. To quote from the Libertarian Party literature:


See Libertarian Party opposes health care plan

So what are sick people with no heath insurance supposed to do? Simply kill themselves?
I've read that Libertarians consider euthanasia to be morally acceptable:

Libertarian argument
This is a variation of the individual rights argument.
* If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action is morally acceptable
* In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights
* It is therefore morally acceptable
See the section titled "Libertarian argument" in Overview of pro-euthanasia arguments

Ahhh, the old "if you don't support Obamacare you don't care about the sick or weak" line.

Ron Paul is the face of modern libertarianism, this is a man who worked for charitable hospitals for decades and saw first hand Americas ability to help those in need when they have expendable income (i.e. when taxes and spending are low).

Retired people don't have an expendable income, they have a FIXED income, with little or no physical ability or time on earth to launch a new career.

We had charity before Medicare was created...it DIDN'T work. Medicare saved the lives of MILLIONS of Americans...it is the BEST of what America has done for We, the People.

In 1965, the elderly were the group most likely to be living in poverty--nearly one in three were poor. Today, the poverty rate for the elderly is similar to that of the age group 18-64--about 1 in 10 are poor.

About one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance prior to Medicare. By contrast, 75 percent of adults under age 65 had hospital insurance, primarily through their employer. For the uninsured, needing hospital services could mean going without health care or turning to family, friends, and/or charity to cover medical bills. More than one in four elderly were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns.

Medicare, along with other programs, notably Social Security, and a strong economy, have greatly improved the ability of the elderly and the disabled to live without these worries. Medicare covers nearly all of the elderly (about 97 percent), making them the population group most likely to have health insurance coverage.

It's a good point. Medicare rocks - the thing that's killing the economy is the simple fact of insuring all the young, pretty working stiffs (who're least likely to file a claim) privately and profitably while insuring the retired folks (those most likely to file a claim) publicly as a general expenditure.

The theory of insurance is that we put $$ into a fund when we're young and pretty and file claims against that fund when we're old and breaking down.

Reality in America is that we dump billions into private insurance pools while were young and healthy, only to have the insurance executives fly off to Aruba on a private jet for a tax-deductible marketing meeting with the money we need for our old-age frailties, telling us to fuck off and apply for Medicare.

Either force the private bureaucracies to manage my health care premiums with the aging consumer in mind so they can use the money not spent when I'm young to pay for my inevitable hip replacement at age 75, or let me dump my current health care premiums into Medicare, so I won't feel so guilty tapping that pool when I'm old and in need of a doc.

Right now, we're chumps.

 

[Steelplate]

WryCatcher:

I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.

Why would you trust UNIVERSAL ANYTHING in the hands of a govt who has raided and emptied every TRUST fund in their keeping? It's only been 70 yrs and we arguing about the mismanagement, theft and actuarial malfeasance of Soc Sec and Medicare. Unless THOSE UNIVERSAL programs get fixed, the American public isn't stupid enough to fall for another UNIVERSAL anything. ESPECIALLY -- when the govt can turn around and start MEANS TESTING and age qualifying programs that were SUPPOSED to be everyone..

And as for Alternatives being the clear wave of future -- that's not a statement that the govt is needed there is it? AND - I highly disagree with that engineering/science conclusion. We can debate that one at

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3778834-post31.html

By the same token... why should we trust the private sector with the general health needs of the people, when all that really matters to them is profit and buying legislation that affords them a great degree of lack of accountability?

You're right, the American People aren't stupid. Social Security should be flush with money, unfortunately it was robbed from by Politicians trying to score political points. Everyone who has ever worked has been paying into it from the time they started working... for me... it was age 14, and I've been paying into it for 32 years. That's a lot of investment dollars. The money robbed should be paid back... WITH INTEREST.... NOW.

Once again... why should we trust wall street investments with our nesteggs? The next Crap shoot is on and it's only a matter of time that people lose everything...again... then we'll have the next set of Conservatives say that it was their own damned fault for losing it. Social Security is the RIGHT system. It needs to be fully refunded the money that was "borrowed", and perhaps tweaked a little. But there needs to be Social Security... a presence that is relatively immune to Wall Street Casino tactics.

You want to do something about Medicare? Make it Medicare for all... then, go after Big Pharma, Med Tech, Hospitals and Doctors and Force them to reduce their costs and their profit margins. Because Insurance Companies aren't the ONLY bad guys in our ridiculous cost of Health Care.

And Please... don't give me the "what about Innovation" BS. Perhaps it's time that the rest of the world shares in the cost of innovation. Instead of us innovating, OUR CITIZENS paying the price of that innovation, and the same products getting sold globally at a fraction of what we pay.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One label does not fit all, or even many, it seems only those on the fringe advocate a pure ideology. Most elected officials are phonies, they preach to a choir, candor is rare and rarely do they stray from political corectness.

Some aspects of Libertarianism appeal to me, Ron Paul offers some very common sense examples but his brand of libertarianism seems very extreme and impractical. A pragmatic libertarianism would have greater appeal, an ideological orthodoxy where decisions are made by a litmus test and not 'boots on the ground' does not.

The current crop of Republicans have no appeal. Though I support and practice living within one's means Republicans tout but have never practiced this principle. There is not a hint of pragmatism withihn the Republican Party at this time; in seeking an identity the 'leadership' seem to believe the past is the way to the future. While I'm not an iconoclast I understand doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is foolish. I also see an ingrained intolerance within the GOP and a fear by their leaders and those who aspire to lead to engage in real debate on important issues.

The Democratic Party seems to represent the vast majority of our citizens, yet seems unable to form a coherent plan or a common message. The concept of herding cats provides and excellent image of their problem. In effect it is the opposite of lock-step Republcanism, Democrats cannot seem to reduce their ideas into a short, concise and easy to understnd phrases. Every idea or policy is vetted intenally and no nuince is ignored. Yes, but ... is the most common response to any opinon offered (Obama was successful with "Hope and Change" which is the proof that the exception proves the rule). Yet when they did get power they overreached, something not uncommon by both major parties.

I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.

I like it. Sounds like a step toward fair taxes and appropriate regulations to me. Government should educate and leave serving us to the idiots who're willing to do it for money. Ass-u-me-ing fair taxes and appropriate regulation, it would be a step closer to the stars.

We gotta *Pinky Swear* though, can't let the homeless & indigent pile up - gotta keep things tidy for the tourists.

 

[Lars]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Can't say it is objectively bad, but if you believe in free speech and free thought it is most certainly a bad thing. In that sense, I don't think Europe has changed much since the Middle Ages. Minus a small progression during the Enlightenment Era, Europe has regressed back towards repressive laws on individuals freedom in the form of speech codes. They simply replaced what kind of speech is now illegal. Where as in the old days you could not criticize the established Church or the Monarchy, now you cannot engage in "hate speech" or "seditious speech" or "holocaust denial".

If you think Europe is about the same as it was in the Middle Ages you are one of the biggest loons on this site. And that's saying somehting.
Equating "hate speech" with Holocaust denial is simply wrong.

I never said Europe was the same, I said the speech codes exist, like the did in the middle ages, just on different forms of speech.

They are all forms of speech. You essentially want to lock people in a cage at gunpoint for having a disagreement on historical events with you, that is just barbaric.

 

[Lars]

Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things. The only libertarian plank a large plurality and a soon to be majority support is Marijuana legalization, and a smaller amount(still not close to a majority or large plurality) support defense spending cuts. But Defense spending cuts and Marijuana legalization are probably the most popular libertarian planks. I say this as an anarcho-libertarian btw.
Public Opinion for Libertarians | Foundation for Economic Education

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

 

[Steelplate]

Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things. The only libertarian plank a large plurality and a soon to be majority support is Marijuana legalization, and a smaller amount(still not close to a majority or large plurality) support defense spending cuts. But Defense spending cuts and Marijuana legalization are probably the most popular libertarian planks. I say this as an anarcho-libertarian btw.
Public Opinion for Libertarians | Foundation for Economic Education

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Special interests certainly do have votes. They have votes in the way of entities like "citizens United", "concerned taxpayers ad nauseum" and the like. They are corporate sponsored and funded interests that influence voting from a general populous that is scared and very much open to brainwashing(advertizing).

It's kind of like an "as seen on TV" voting process. All they would need is the late Billy Mays to make it complete.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Usually when people talk about the strong preying on the weak it's codetalk for "I hate capitalism."

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

'Social Justice' is code talk for republican medical bankruptcy.

Code talk for smacking baby seals is 'Red, White & Bop'

Only because you fucking believe it...

You're apparently another fool thats been brainwashed with "Whole Language."

In your fucking mind blue could be red and just as long as you believe it that means its the truth..

Either that or you're just ignorant...

 

[Steelplate]

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

'Social Justice' is code talk for republican medical bankruptcy.

Code talk for smacking baby seals is 'Red, White & Bop'

Only because you fucking believe it...

You're apparently another fool thats been brainwashed with "Whole Language."

In your fucking mind blue could be red and just as long as you believe it that means its the truth..

Either that or you're just ignorant...

Yeah... couldn't be you... could it?

 

[Mr.Nick]

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Special interests certainly do have votes. They have votes in the way of entities like "citizens United", "concerned taxpayers ad nauseum" and the like. They are corporate sponsored and funded interests that influence voting from a general populous that is scared and very much open to brainwashing(advertizing).

It's kind of like an "as seen on TV" voting process. All they would need is the late Billy Mays to make it complete.

Problem is that ALL progressive special interests violate the Bill of Rights....

My special interest group doesn't tolerate that bullshit.

 

[Mr.Nick]

'Social Justice' is code talk for republican medical bankruptcy.

Code talk for smacking baby seals is 'Red, White & Bop'

Only because you fucking believe it...

You're apparently another fool thats been brainwashed with "Whole Language."

In your fucking mind blue could be red and just as long as you believe it that means its the truth..

Either that or you're just ignorant...

Yeah... couldn't be you... could it?

My judgment on social issues, er all issues that pertain to society are based on the BILL OF RIGHTS, not my emotions unlike progressives...

I got it right - you're fucking wrong and will always be wrong until you consult the Bill of Rights before your emotions on issues...

Unlike you, I have supported ideas I'm morally opposed to because the Bill of Rights protect those ideas....

 

[Steelplate]

No... they are based upon fear and prejudice. You worry that someone is going to take something from "you".

You don't want a fair and equitable America. You want what's best for you.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn wrote:

Why would you trust UNIVERSAL ANYTHING in the hands of a govt who has raided and emptied every TRUST fund in their keeping? It's only been 70 yrs and we arguing about the mismanagement, theft and actuarial malfeasance of Soc Sec and Medicare. Unless THOSE UNIVERSAL programs get fixed, the American public isn't stupid enough to fall for another UNIVERSAL anything. ESPECIALLY -- when the govt can turn around and start MEANS TESTING and age qualifying programs that were SUPPOSED to be everyone..

And SteelPlate replied:

By the same token... why should we trust the private sector with the general health needs of the people, when all that really matters to them is profit and buying legislation that affords them a great degree of lack of accountability?

You're right, the American People aren't stupid. Social Security should be flush with money, unfortunately it was robbed from by Politicians trying to score political points. Everyone who has ever worked has been paying into it from the time they started working... for me... it was age 14, and I've been paying into it for 32 years. That's a lot of investment dollars. The money robbed should be paid back... WITH INTEREST.... NOW.

Once again... why should we trust wall street investments with our nesteggs? The next Crap shoot is on and it's only a matter of time that people lose everything...again... then we'll have the next set of Conservatives say that it was their own damned fault for losing it. Social Security is the RIGHT system. It needs to be fully refunded the money that was "borrowed", and perhaps tweaked a little. But there needs to be Social Security... a presence that is relatively immune to Wall Street Casino tactics.

You want to do something about Medicare? Make it Medicare for all... then, go after Big Pharma, Med Tech, Hospitals and Doctors and Force them to reduce their costs and their profit margins. Because Insurance Companies aren't the ONLY bad guys in our ridiculous cost of Health Care.

And Please... don't give me the "what about Innovation" BS. Perhaps it's time that the rest of the world shares in the cost of innovation. Instead of us innovating, OUR CITIZENS paying the price of that innovation, and the same products getting sold globally at a fraction of what we pay.

First of all --- congrats on your outrage at the theft that occurred in SS and MC. We need more of that. And you might want to check with the Indian Lands Trust Fund and the Highway Trust Fund that also have been looted and squandered. It's a perfect record of abuse of responsibility.

The stock crash in 2008 reminded EVERYONE of the risks involved with investing. Unfortunately, many govt pension funds ALSO suffered losses at time when they are expecting record payouts. (the next major crisis/bailout to hit will be due to THEIR poor planning). But unless you believe that loss is permanent (it could be) and not short-lived , folks in retirement will recover most of their planned nesteggs within a few years. The days of "making any money" off of Soc Sec are over SteelyOne.. And the days of "living off Soc Sec" alone may also be over. I expect to see a huge NEGATIVE return. If you don't live to age 85 or so -- it's a large loss for most folks under 55. Especially since you only get $280 for your burial and NOTHING to leave to the kids as a legacy (unless they're under 18). So as an "investment" -- it sucks.. And the outlook is even suckier..

The profit motive in healthcare by itself isn't the problem. A govt run plan has to balance the books with enough margin of error to account for the economy, level of demand, ect. That amount of cushion is equal to or greater than profit skimmed under the free market scheme. IN FACT -- the money STOLEN from Medicare overpayments over the years SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS PROFIT and put away for later since they were lifting excess money out of poor people's paychecks. Neither is the ability of ANY organized group to defend itself against legislation a problem. The problem is transfer of costs. Having Medicare bully physicians into chump change slaves and hospitals into charity operations just transfers the costs. We've also convinced ourselves that we NEED 1st dollar coverage. That $10 co-pays are outrageous. Ask yourself --how expensive is WELL baby care? I think it cost me all of $1500 for my kids medical care from 1 year to 18years. I paid it ALL since I have a high deductible plan. I've spent more on pets. The point is -- we shouldn't even USE insurance for the 1st $XXXX (fill in the blank) of healthcare. That ought to be between us and the providers. Where folks NEED insurance is to cover baby care that's NOT normal.

Don't think that with baby boomers coming on to Medicare that NOW is a good time to talk about offering it to everyone. Unless you plan to cover your theft tracks by taxing the crap out of healthy young people. And I personally think that is the motive.

 

[uscitizen]

One label does not fit all, or even many, it seems only those on the fringe advocate a pure ideology. Most elected officials are phonies, they preach to a choir, candor is rare and rarely do they stray from political corectness.

Some aspects of Libertarianism appeal to me, Ron Paul offers some very common sense examples but his brand of libertarianism seems very extreme and impractical. A pragmatic libertarianism would have greater appeal, an ideological orthodoxy where decisions are made by a litmus test and not 'boots on the ground' does not.

The current crop of Republicans have no appeal. Though I support and practice living within one's means Republicans tout but have never practiced this principle. There is not a hint of pragmatism withihn the Republican Party at this time; in seeking an identity the 'leadership' seem to believe the past is the way to the future. While I'm not an iconoclast I understand doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is foolish. I also see an ingrained intolerance within the GOP and a fear by their leaders and those who aspire to lead to engage in real debate on important issues.

The Democratic Party seems to represent the vast majority of our citizens, yet seems unable to form a coherent plan or a common message. The concept of herding cats provides and excellent image of their problem. In effect it is the opposite of lock-step Republcanism, Democrats cannot seem to reduce their ideas into a short, concise and easy to understnd phrases. Every idea or policy is vetted intenally and no nuince is ignored. Yes, but ... is the most common response to any opinon offered (Obama was successful with "Hope and Change" which is the proof that the exception proves the rule). Yet when they did get power they overreached, something not uncommon by both major parties.

I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.

Yep, but you realizr that is gonna make the pinheaded RWingers heads hurt trying to figure out how to label you now.

 

[Contumacious]

Government should do everything that needs to be done that the private sector is unwilling to do. .

Taxpayers and neighbors owe the Parasitic Faction a living.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK Avg-Joe:

Government should do everything that needs to be done that the private sector is unwilling to do. Clearing the streets of the ill and dying poor may just be one of those responsibilities. How compassionately the job is done should be up to the voters, not the insurance lobby.

Now you're gonna get me excommunicated from the Libertarian Party for this... It's gonna get ugly in here when they come for me. I'm guilty here of a libertarian thought crime.

There is a role for welfare and safety nets.

These should be limited and transitory. Instead of a food stamp program, let the govt subsidize local food banks and homeless shelters. Put the money in places where the public volunteers and non-profits have a lot of ONE on ONE contact with the folks in trouble. DON'T badger food stamp holders into buying govt cheese. Don't take away 4th amendment rights of people in public housing. Poverty and affliction REQUIRE one-on-one compassion. That's NOT even in the list of stuff that govt can accomplish.

My over-riding problem is that we need to be HONEST about all this UNIVERSAL crap.. Forget about creeping SocSec age limits, raising the salary caps, and means testing. Just CALL IT WELFARE and let me OUT! I'll still contribute enough to cover the TRULY needy! Not my neighbors taking down SS checks to the banks in their Bimmers and Lexus.

My other problem is that govt only THINKS it can bully providers into providing cheaper services than say an insurance company. You only need to look at the sorry state of Workmen's Comp insurance run by the states. IT's a HUGE burden on employers in most states because the govt at that level has FAILED to keep up with fraud and abuse. AND they've encouraged an industry of legal challenges that likely would have been shut down if it wasn't for political pressure to "protect the victims" of business.

If I'm still here tomorrow after the LPartty Truth Squad arrives -- I'll pass you a note.

 

[JohnA]

Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things. The only libertarian plank a large plurality and a soon to be majority support is Marijuana legalization, and a smaller amount(still not close to a majority or large plurality) support defense spending cuts. But Defense spending cuts and Marijuana legalization are probably the most popular libertarian planks. I say this as an anarcho-libertarian btw.
Public Opinion for Libertarians | Foundation for Economic Education

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

special interest dont have votes they have something much more powerfull
MONEY ( power )
They fund the parties so they get what they want the politicans tell to the citizens listening what they want to hear to get votes but do what the SI say ...

 

[Contumacious]

There is a role for welfare and safety nets.

what prevents you - and your followers - from privately - setting a charity for those who you choose to help??????????????????????????

.

 

[Lars]

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Special interests certainly do have votes. They have votes in the way of entities like "citizens United", "concerned taxpayers ad nauseum" and the like. They are corporate sponsored and funded interests that influence voting from a general populous that is scared and very much open to brainwashing(advertizing).

It's kind of like an "as seen on TV" voting process. All they would need is the late Billy Mays to make it complete.

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.