That's some of the craziest wack stuff I'ver ever heard Sqrl.

 @Bolded: that's just one form of being moderate.

Libertarianism isn't that,  libertarianism is technically just the ideology that free-will should guide political systems.  Sounds great, I don't  know anyone in there right mind that would argue against that ideology.  But it means so much more in practice.

It means the elimination and restriction of government beaurocracies.   Again, this doesn't sound bad.

 Immediately, even libertarians agree, there is a need for some agencies.  First you have the Legislative and Executive bodies to make decisions and get things done, then the Judicial body to adress grievences (because even in a perfect society where no one does any wrong, people are going to disagree on what "wrong" means). 

Of course people aren't all going to not do wrong, so you are going to need military, law enforcement, trade commissions, and regulators - meaning that when companies start screwing each other and customers over you going to have at the very least judicial decisions that create a code and more than likely you are going to have executive and legislative code too.  So now free-will and the golden rule don't seem to be enough, because people don't live like that.  People are going to speed, kill each other, steal, lie, and practice bad business; it's human nature - it's sounds pessimistic, but outside of the garden of Eden people never have followed the rules.

Well we can still have a minimalist government, smaller than the one we have. But how are all those tiny programs going to be paid for.  There has to be some type of tax to pay for arms, labor, land, etc...  So now you need tax laws, and someone to collect it.  When someone doesn't pay, how are they going to force them to pay?  Libertarians call to mind "men with guns", so I want to know how they are going to pay for government with out collecting taxes.

"Moderate" Libertarians understand this, but how does this differ from a Socially-liberal Republican or a Fiscally conservative Democrat?  It's just another name, because young people, and some older people with grudges, want to belong to somehthing that sounds different, new and exciting.

I deleted the rest of your post because, while it accurately illustrates the Libertarian party's beliefs, isn't held by any of the Libertarians I know personally nor does it seem to be held by most of the members of the party itself.

I think you're missing the point; the reason so many people like myself are registered as Libertarians is because of the split in the party-thought. We want a party that represents social freedom and fiscal responsibility. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans offer that and the closest thing we have is the Libertarian party. Not all of us agree with every tenant of the party, just as many Republicans I know are pro-choice; we stick to the party because it has more of the core values we believe in than any other party in America. 

And just so you know, I've been a member of the Libertarian party for roughly a decade now. The "new wave" of Libertarianism, spurred mostly by the internet, had nothing to do with my choice, in fact it didn't even exist in 1998 when I joined. I even had to write in the party when I registered. I believe in many of the principles of the party - though not all - and neither of the major parties in America come close to my core beliefs as a person. It's that simple. 

You are right, but most of the principles that make up the party will actually work or are already done. We live in a democratic constitutional republic, which is a big part of libertarianism. They don't like the structure of the US government or the EU but this is governing for, of, and by the people. We elect the ones who form it, and we can change it at anytime. The problem with republics and democracies is that "51% of the people tell the other 49% how to live". This is the best system we've got, but until everyone agrees people are always going to feel like their rights are being taken away.

Don't get me wrong, I like freedom and fiscal responsability but the system we have works and works really well. Populations in industrialized countries live longer, healthier, and more free lives than any other period in history. More people (total or proportionally) have access to better health care, education, services (both public and private) and entertainment. There's more variety, better working conditions, freedom to worship, freedom and ability to travel than any other time since the dawn of civilization. Industrialized nations have also begun to lift the thumb of oppression, colonialization, and empire. Many of today's international problems don't stem from "neo-colonialism"; quite the opposite, the problems are just a result of adjustment as oppressed people begin to govern and guide themselves and become more informed.

All I am trying to promote is that people take a look around and ask themselves if the systems we have are really so bad.

Have the "high taxes" of democracy been better or worse than indentured servitude, slavery, feudalism, or the aristocracy?

Are we not already living in a system where anyone can work hard/smart and get rewarded appropriately depending on the demand of the services they are supplying?

If libertarianism is such a great way to reduce taxes and promote people being able to run businesses the way they want, then why aren't more of the wealthy and entrupenural libertarian? (Not all of them abuse the corrupt system...)

If we did adopt libertarianism, do we ban abortion? The official party line is no, but many people believe that it ends a life and prevents that person from having free will.

Edit: To respond more directly to your post, this is why I vote for the individual that I think is best suited for the job and not by party lines... I think enough people in the U.S. already do this, but unfortunately parlimentary systems don't allow for this as much but atleast provide a place for more than two parties and force compromise.

I agree with 100% of what you just said. Which is why I'm a "moderate Libertarian" and not some batshit crazy motherfucker who throws cats at you when you approach my home and spends my free time crafting oh-so-elegant bombs to journalists who write things that I don't like.

We're on the same page here. I'm not trying to restructure anything; if I'm trying to do something at all, it's get this fucking country back to the freedoms and openness (not a word, forgive me) of the Constitution. There was so little written there but those few words made this country so great in the first place. Let's not tear that down. Let's listen to the brilliance of a few really smart motherfuckers who happened to luck into each other at the same time.

Times have changed; there is no slavery, women are allowed to voted, etc. etc. But none of that had jack shit to do with the Constitution, nor do modern problems like telecommunications, the internet, or insider trading. The core beliefs that I live every day involve all of the things I just mentioned being regulated by the government because no republic can live without states bowing down to a greater power. The key point is that allowing that greater power to control too much is detrimental to not only that state, but that state's populace.

And that is why I'm such an advocate of the old Republic and Libertarianism. Really, Libertarianism isn't much more than Jeffersonian beliefs with a modern mix of Republicanism - minus that motherfucker they call God, that is - and there's a very historical reason why people believe in the party. It's not some new-fangled idea that just popped up a few years ago and the Republican attachment to God and the rise of the Libertarian party are pretty much congruent. 

Big government has everything to do with the internet, we wouldn't have the internet without 1. overspending military programs like DARPA and 2. federal insistance that states update their communications systems.

The constitution has everything to do with the end of slavery and universal suffrage (women's right to vote) because 1. preamble of the constitution has ambiguity that guides the spirit of the constitution (which is actually has legal meaning and power) allows the union to survive when beliefs of citizens shift and 2. the constitution has a very sound system for amending.

What's my agenda then?

I am trying to get people to put ideology on the back burner and begin to look at things more pragmatically. The ideology for most is the same: National Interest, Personal Interest, National Security, Personal Security. The key to successful policy is balancing these (sometimes) conflicting interests.

The issues that Libertarians are best suited to fight for are ending the governments contribution to corporate corruption. Governments shouldn't influence business through regulation that inhibits morally acceptable practices, but at the same time they should not contribute to bad markets by creating oligopolies or monopolies (Like defense contractors, oil companies, etc.). I wish Libertarians would focus on this instead of trying to get people excited over ending taxes (which even they admit will never happen).

My question is: why do libertarians seem to be so much cozier with Republicans, with whom they partially agree (market deregulation/privatization/etc.) and partially disagree (civil liberties/secularism), than with Democrats, with whom they also partially agree (civil liberties/secularism) and partially disagree (market regulation/gov't programs/etc.)?

I'll say it again: You and I aren't disagreeing on anything here.

Labels don't mean shit.

...

I just deleted a whole bunch of shit because frankly, we're the only ones talking about this. I think we're pretty damned close to the same opinion on things but labels get in the way of things - as do they in most avenues of life - so let's just ignore it and resume this conversation another time.

I know, I'm sorry if I sound (er... read) like I am arguing. I am actually just enjoying discussing and fleshing out ideas with someone who thinks. Not necessarily thinks the same or differently, but thinks; not enough people do that.

BTW, I don't get the term big government. What I mean is that big doesn't equal bad in all situations, so it's not a good descriptive term for what the problem is.

Big government should be called bloated government. The difference is that the US has a big government merely because this is a big country, and trying to run it with anything small, like the Articles of Confederation, didn't work.

A bloated government is bad not because of its size, but because of its inefficiency. We get too many people doing the same job, and just getting in the way, like Russia before and after the rise of communism.