I’m with you, man. Bless you for the liberal firestorm you are about to endure

I appreciate your levelheadedness. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing on policy in a rational way. That’s a big reason I come to this site; I don’t agree with a lot that’s posted but I want to be open to all sides. Unfortunately a lot of commenters prefer to hide behind their anonymity and throw barbs instead of…

Man, this place is a liberal echo chamber. I appreciate those of who actually seemed to want reasoned debate. As for the rest, eh, by the venom in your replies I’m sure you all are happy and loving life so more power to you.

No, all I did was point out that you made an ad hominem attack on a bunch of people you don’t know and tried to claim it as truth.

I agree. The Libertarian Party has become a haven for the crazies. It’s sad, really. But every party has dumbasses in it.

Ah, so my guess is that you are perfectly happy with the (I presume) Democratic Party is now? So you have ideals that you are in general agreement with them about, and they are the perfect embodiment of those ideals? You are lucky

OK, I’ll bite. How about “Libertarians want just enough government to make sure they can economically exploit the fuck out of you without someone telling them how they can and cannot go about that exploitation. They basically want the government to be the dirty prison guard who holds back a rival gang from intervening…

Like I said elsewhere, that cuts both ways though. While they would not support equal rights legislation, they also would not support Jim Crow laws, laws restricting abortion, the NC bathroom bill, etc. Government can be bad at civil rights as well, you know

I agree with that, and that lies more along with my personal views. I am heavily involved with the foster system, which desperately needs more money. As a libertarian, I guess I’m supposed to be opposed to it, but I’m not because there’s a desperate need. I believe we need government at times, but I also believe it…

Remember it goes both ways. They may not champion legislation guaranteeing social protections, but they also are against legislation restricting civil rights. So no, there would be no ERA but there would also be no Jim Crow laws and enforced segregation

I agree entirely

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner!

A very good point.

Was that sarcastic?

Unfortunately, you’re right. It’s become something of a haven for militia types and conspiracy theorists. It’s pretty embarrassing, really

You are correct, libertarianism is not “progressive”. That’s sort of the point. “Progressive” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

You should go study some more and then come back for an actual informed debate. Or don’t, no skin off my back

Could be

I agree with you, actually, though I fall in the camp of trying to restrict the government where possible while also conceding it’s not possible all or even most of the time.

Yep, you are one of those many people who have no idea what libertarianism is about. Nor, apparently, do you care to learn