Libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

It seems to me that a libertarian government should not take action against whatever is going on unless there is demonstrable, definite harm shown. People having wild-eyed prejudices against something because they are Druids or astrologers --- that should be left to the free market to sort out, certainly not to government interference.

That helps with the weird ideas brigade -- if they don't like something, let them buy something else -- but it doesn't help with the issue of what to do about fertilizer bombs and guns easily available to the crazy people.

How do efforts to keep guns out of the hands of whoever you think is crazy keep people safe?

As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?

It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

So where did that hostility come from? I thought the issue was libertarianism and its point of view. Forgive me and I'll move on if I have misunderstood the topic.

To me organic means free of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that people don't want included in their foods. And if somebody is going to advertise something as organic, they should not deceive the public that it was produced other than organically. Personally I don't insist on organic in my food, but I do insist that it be free of salmonella or other poisons, and that it be properly handled and honestly labeled so that I know what I am buying.

GMOs are sufficiently controversial that I have no problem with them being banned where people don't want them or where they have been doing harm. I don't know whether they should be banned outright or whether the millions who have been fed because of new innovations outweighs any downside to these products.

The point I intended to make, before QW branded me an ignorant fool unworthy of discussion in this thread, was that true libertarians do not have problems with laws against cheating or misleading or pushing products in a way to deceive. I do not mind laws that require those producing products to provide an honest label so I know what I am buying.

I have a huge problem in government presuming to tell me that I have to buy 93% lean beef instead of 80% lean beef or the size of orange soda I can buy and such as that.

Labeling GMOs, it it were honest, would require everything to be labelled because almost everything we eat is the product of centuries of genetic modification. That is simple truth, and anyone who wants to require that GMOs be labelled is going to massively expand the power of government to interfere in our food supply by redefining organic and forcing companies to comply with arbitrary, and unnecessary, regulations.

By the way, I expect people to lie, even in commercials, which is why I look around and learn as much as possible before I buy.

 

[Circe]

As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?

It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.

I've never heard of one of these crazies or terrorists using a hair bleach bomb........

I think if hydrogen peroxide were actually good for that, it would have happened.

As a farmy type, I do know that ammonium nitrate (what Tim McVeigh used, and the Times Square bomber tried to use) is a real problem. You cannot buy even one fifty-pound bag without registering and so on. They want to know where ALL of it is going, and it had better be on somebody's field.

There are a lot of things that people aren't allowed to have because crazies and criminals DO misuse them to kill people en masse. Dynamite is one: when I moved in here we found a dynamite keg and blasting caps in the basement: but it's an old house. You can't imagine people removing stumps that way now! Dynamite is controlled and we have to grind out stumps or live with them.

Should people get to freely own machine guns and grenades and shoulder-fired rockets to take to the airport and ping away at jet planes on their day off? Is it okay if people manufacture ricin and culture salmonella? How about cannon?

I would say giving people free access to the materials we KNOW some of them use to kill lots of people, blowing up dams and underwater tunnels freely --- that's a challenge for libertarianism as a system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?

It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.

I've never heard of one of these crazies or terrorists using a hair bleach bomb........

I think if hydrogen peroxide were actually good for that, it would have happened.

As a farmy type, I do know that ammonium nitrate (what Tim McVeigh used, and the Times Square bomber tried to use) is a real problem. You cannot buy even one fifty-pound bag without registering and so on. They want to know where ALL of it is going, and it had better be on somebody's field.

There are a lot of things that people aren't allowed to have because crazies and criminals DO misuse them to kill people en masse. Dynamite is one: when I moved in here we found a dynamite keg and blasting caps in the basement: but it's an old house. You can't imagine people removing stumps that way now! Dynamite is controlled and we have to grind out stumps or live with them.

Should people get to freely own machine guns and grenades and shoulder-fired rockets to take to the airport and ping away at jet planes on their day off? Is it okay if people manufacture ricin and culture salmonella? How about cannon?

I would say giving people free access to the materials we KNOW some of them use to kill lots of people, blowing up dams and underwater tunnels freely --- that's a challenge for libertarianism as a system.

Maybe they prefer things that are less explosive for a reason.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdXjJgDL14c"]Hydrogen Peroxide Bomb - YouTube[/ame]

As for dynamite, you can still buy it and use it to blow stumps because it is perfectly legal. It is actually easier to buy dynamite than it is to buy a fully automatic weapon in most places in the US.

 

[FA_Q2]

By the way, the government does not ‘ensure’ that you comply with personal responsibility. That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively. Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them. I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian. Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.

There is a terrible problem about madmen and terrorists getting guns and killing many people. Does libertarianism require that there is no way to put any roadblocks in their paths to blowing up and shooting lots of people? If not, then there is nothing to be done but tolerate a lot of carnage until another form of government (NOT libertarianism) is chosen by the people, because catching these people is not working: they nearly all suicide anyway. So there is no way to defend the public against madmen and criminals and terrorists getting guns and explosives like ammonium nitrate? I remember when I could buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year. One year (after Timothy McVeigh) I went into the feed store to get fertilizer and they said I had to have a government number!

I was indignant, but there are a lot of fertilizer bombs made even with these controls; how many would there be without controls? What do libertarians think about this problem of public safety, with crazies and evils getting free access to whatever they want for mass killings?

Such controls are against libertarian thought. I would say though that no pure government in any form can exist. While controls are, for the most part, against libertarianism U would support (and I think most libertarians as well, basic controls over very deadly substances. Essentially, the trading of nuclear weapons is not going to be legal. Nor will the ownership of active SAM sites. I don’t think that libertarians in general are going to go for complete removal of all controlled substances particularly when many of those, like anthrax, do not have any use outside the harm of your neighbors.

Ammonium nitrate is different, of course, as it has a use outside of the harm of others but, like I said, I would support some controls on some substances even though that is not an entirely libertarian concept.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

So where did that hostility come from? I thought the issue was libertarianism and its point of view. Forgive me and I'll move on if I have misunderstood the topic.

To me organic means free of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that people don't want included in their foods. And if somebody is going to advertise something as organic, they should not deceive the public that it was produced other than organically. Personally I don't insist on organic in my food, but I do insist that it be free of salmonella or other poisons, and that it be properly handled and honestly labeled so that I know what I am buying.

GMOs are sufficiently controversial that I have no problem with them required to be labeled as such or even being banned where people don't want them or where they have been doing harm. I don't know whether they should be banned outright or whether the millions who have been fed because of new innovations outweighs any downside to these products.

The point I intended to make, before QW branded me an ignorant fool unworthy of discussion in this thread, was that true libertarians do not have problems with laws against cheating or misleading or pushing products in a way to deceive. I do not mind laws that require those producing products to provide an honest label so I know what I am buying.

I have a huge problem in government presuming to tell me that I have to buy 93% lean beef instead of 80% lean beef or the size of orange soda I can buy and such as that.

I would add that not only does libertarianism not go against laws that require honesty but rather it almost requires it. In smaller economies, where a products reputation is critical, such things might not matter that much as the consumers test and reject products that are not honest but in an economy of this size and scope, not to mention with products that take large sums of resource like cars and homes, purposefully making incorrect statements about a product can and should be illegal.

 

[PaulS1950]

The libertarian philosophy is one of personal freedom and personal rights.
You are free to think and act any way you want AS LONG as you don't interfere with the freedoms and rights of others.

The whole concept that laws against guns is wrong. We have laws that make it illegal for felons and the insane from buying guns - just like we have laws against speeding - neither stops people from breaking the law. We can't prevent free people from breaking the law but we can prosecute them when they do. Many times felons are caught with a gun - that is a felony - but the gun is confiscated and no charges are filed. the reason we have criminals loose on the streets is that we don't prosecute them. It seems that someone wants the criminals out there for some reason - maybe it is to make it easier to convince people that guns are bad. That could also be the reason we rarely hear about the 1.5 to 3 million times a year the citizens protect themselves against criminals. If we were reminded 3 million times a year that guns do good it would far outweigh the 8000 or so murders a year wouldn't it.

A libertarian federal government would not interfere with your personal choices - if you want to be a protected species then move to a State that believes in doing that - like California or New York or Illinois. If you would rather be an individual and a bit more self sufficient then you can live in the other states.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian. Basically, it's like the desires of children. They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property. Wildlife? Goodbye. Pristine forests? Goodbye. FDA? Goodbye. Social programs for the elderly? Goodbye.
I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[PaulS1950]

I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian. Basically, it's like the desires of children. They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property. Wildlife? Goodbye. Pristine forests? Goodbye. FDA? Goodbye. Social programs for the elderly? Goodbye.
I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.

You obviously have no concept of what the Libertarian platform is.
The national parks are in place and protected areas that the population wants to keep the way they are. It is beyond the scope of the Libertarian government to takes those areas away from the people.

If you harm someone by polluting or developing an area the law will prosecute you for that - whether it is a federal law or a state law.

State parks are not run by the federal government nor can they be sold or developed without the state's consent.

You have formed your opinions on baseless rumors and not on the reality of what is. I suggest you go to the Libertarian Party website and learn the facts before you try to define that party.

 

[dblack]

This is why "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.

If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is why "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.

If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.

Government is the tool that people use to form a well-ordered society. Without government to "enforce societal mores and standards" there would be no fire fighters. There would be no roads or highways. There would be no currency. There would be no doctors, hospitals or pharmacies. There would be no citizenship, borders or passports. There would be no "rights" either since the means to protect those rights requires a functioning legal system which is based entirely upon "societal mores and standards". You stated that Libertarians "reject the notion that government should run society" which means that you are advocating anarchy instead.

 

[dblack]

This is why "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.

If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.

Government is the tool that people use to form a well-ordered society.

I think we're in agreement that this is the view libertarians reject. Government is necessary to facilitate society, to maintain and enforce laws that make it possible for us to get along in a pluralistic community. But it's not necessary for government to dictate what form that society takes. The details of the kind of society we create can, and should in the libertarian view, be left up to the voluntary interaction of free people, and not a matter of coercive laws.

Without government to "enforce societal mores and standards" there would be no fire fighters. There would be no roads or highways. There would be no currency. There would be no doctors, hospitals or pharmacies. There would be no citizenship, borders or passports.

Well, I disagree. I don't think people are helpless to solve their own problems via voluntary cooperation. I could cite examples (my own neighborhood, in PA, relies on volunteer firefighters) but the point is largely ideological.

There would be no "rights" either since the means to protect those rights requires a functioning legal system which is based entirely upon "societal mores and standards".

Libertarians don't reject a functioning legal system. But we believe the purpose and function of that legal system should be to protect our freedoms - not as a tool to bully people in the name of 'society mores and standards'.

You stated that Libertarians "reject the notion that government should run society" which means that you are advocating anarchy instead.

Well, then you're simply redefining the term, which makes meaningful conversation difficult. The idea that government should be limited to protecting our rights, rather than enforcing conformity for conformity's sake, is a well-established viewpoint. And while you may disagree with it, it's not anarchy by any commonly used definition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is why "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.

If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.

Government is the tool that people use to form a well-ordered society. Without government to "enforce societal mores and standards" there would be no fire fighters. There would be no roads or highways. There would be no currency. There would be no doctors, hospitals or pharmacies. There would be no citizenship, borders or passports. There would be no "rights" either since the means to protect those rights requires a functioning legal system which is based entirely upon "societal mores and standards". You stated that Libertarians "reject the notion that government should run society" which means that you are advocating anarchy instead.

I cannot think of a better argument against government than the one you just gave. I have never met anyone that lived in a well ordered society that wanted to go back to one because the authorization governments always end up repressing its subjects.

 

[Circe]

How do efforts to keep guns out of the hands of whoever you think is crazy keep people safe?

XXXXXXX

The problem is not that it wouldn't work if it were done, the problem is that the government isn't actually DOING it. Crazies regularly get assault rifles no matter how psychotic they are: the Batman movie shooter, Adam Lanza, the Korean who shot up Virginia Tech. They were all known madmen, but had no problems getting guns. Certainly the process doesn't work if no one bothers to work it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian. Basically, it's like the desires of children. They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property. Wildlife? Goodbye. Pristine forests? Goodbye. FDA? Goodbye. Social programs for the elderly? Goodbye.
I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.

Obviously you have not bothered to read the last 22 pages that point out everything you just claimed as entirely false. Please, get a handle on the thread before throwing out wild claims and empty attacks.

 

[dblack]

One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.

Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.

 

[thanatos144]

One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.

Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.

why would the country want to move towards a form of government that can't make up its own damn mind?

 

[dblack]

One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.

Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.

why would the country want to move towards a form of government that can't make up its own damn mind?

A form of government doesn't have a mind. People do, and they disagree. Libertarianism, as an ideology, is far, far, more cohesive and clear than anything Republicans and Democrats have to offer. We couldn't even have these kinds of discussions concerning the mainstream parties because don't dare offer any kind of clear vision of where they want to take things.

 

[midcan5]

....Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.

It's hard for me to understand what loss of freedom occurred since libertarianism became the latest newfangled panacea for all that ails us. Maybe it is me, but I feel as free as a bird, only I wish I could fly too.

I had never heard libertarianism called 'vulgar' but the comments below are interesting. I also include a comment from our first president which is telling. As for the imaginary free market, check this site out. See Japan for instance, especially if you buy Japanese cars. 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers | Office of the United States Trade Representative

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles."

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Vulgar Libertarianism Watch, Part 1

"The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle." link above

and this too: Not Even a Bourgeois Freedom: Liberty of Contract in John Roberts?s America ? Crooked Timber


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[thanatos144]

One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.

Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.

why would the country want to move towards a form of government that can't make up its own damn mind?

A form of government doesn't have a mind. People do, and they disagree. Libertarianism, as an ideology, is far, far, more cohesive and clear than anything Republicans and Democrats have to offer. We couldn't even have these kinds of discussions concerning the mainstream parties because don't dare offer any kind of clear vision of where they want to take things.

let me make this easy for you you can't have everything selfish behavior is not a good quality a government is for all the people not just the burnouts.