are there any libertarian US states?

[angus]

Libertarians?!  You'd have to be one hell of a serious plutocrat to take the Libertarians seriously.  Those guys are way too far right even for the rightist extremists.  Want to return to Thomas Jefferson's America.  Want complete liberty but are unwilling to spend even a dime on the maintenance of a standing army and navy.  No thanks.  I'd not be so quick to replace the two big corporate-controlled fatcat parties with those guys.  Alaskans may be far right compared with most of us, but they're not looney.  Same with New Hampshire folks.  There is no state where the majority of the population thinks like marie antionette.  There's plenty of polling data to back this up, and even the most libertarian of Americans are a long way from Thomas Jefferson's ideals.  

Folks who want the government off their backs and out of their bedrooms, and who think it's silly to argue over gay marriage, and who want lower taxes, and think they have the right to shoot guns, smoke pot, snort coke, do prostitutes, etc., will not be satisfied with either the DNC or the RNC.  But, depending on what issues they care about, they'll take the lesser of those two big monsters.  Just look at 2004.  In a nation of 293 million people, the best we could come up with was Bush versus Gore.  That ought to be a source of extreme national humiliation.  But was it?  Not really.  Not when you consider that 97% of those who voted voted either for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum.  That's the reality.  I can't imagine Alaskans jumping the GOP ship.  Maybe NH, but even if they do it'll be toward the Democrats' vessel and not to the ship of destitution known as the Libertarian Party.

There is no Libertarian state.  There is no almost libertarian state.  Thomas Jefferson died a long time ago.  For better or worse, technology progresses onward and no agrarianist will change that.  Alaskans may not be high-tech, but they don't want mass starvation, bad roads, bad schools, and general lawlessness either.

[angus]

Angus - where did you get the silly idea that liberatrians(big or little L) don't want to spend ANY money to maintain the military? All the libertarians I know realize that the military is one of the few functions best handled by government. I think your perceptions of libertarianism are WAY off.

You can live in a world of tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber if you like, but I choose to at least try to change things.

I also voted for a third party candidate in 2000, but that's beside the point.  The only president we have had in my lifetime who comes reasonably close to the libertarian philosophy was Bill Clinton.  His legacy will forever be that he stood aside and did nothing while the bubble grew and made us all temporarily wealthy.  I like that in a president, don't get me wrong, but I find it particularly ironic that those who would least benefit from such leadership (impoverished urban blacks, for example) are often those who most supported him.  Welfare reform was a fine example of the fine Clintonian legacy to which I'm referring, and a stark example of the paradox of support.

To answer you, I studied their platform very hard in 2000 when I was considering voting for Harry Browne.  (ultimately I did not vote for him), and saw that they still want to abolish all cabinet positions except the four which are constitutionally mandated.  And it was clear that their perception of the "War" department, as it was originally called, was aptly named, as they feel it needn't exist except in times of war.  The Libertarians I know (well, I only know two) fume constantly about Bush & Company and their big spending habits and our military's expensive toys, even at a time when we are committed to war and security efforts.  I'm not saying we should join the Sean Hannity chorus of labelling as unAmerican anyone who questions the military spending, but I think it is worth noting that those who most claim to favor abject liberty, for its own sake, are those least likely to cough up sons, daughters, and dollars for its protection.

[angus]

Well angus, Bush's spending habits on the military aren't that big of a factor to me - I realize we need the military and that wars are expensive. It's Bush's non-military spending habits that I dislike(he hasn't vetoed a single spending bill, and his tax-cuts are fiscally irresponsible considering the deficit we're in). I'm not sure what you mean by 'cough up sons, daughters' though, I can't force my kids to join the military(I wouldn't discourage it though), though I personally might join the National Gaurd after college.

Also, most of us libertarians don't like it when we're written off as not to be taken seriously. We do have an effect on the system, as do many other third parties(we all see how Nader affected things last election). Granted our effect is often small, but without third parties there would really be nothing to keep the two major parties at least a little honest.

Oh, I'm a tightwad too.  A rockefeller republican, if you will, and a huge fan of everything I've ever read by Ayn Rand, but you gotta see the libertarians for the selfish plutocratic individualists they are.  Hey, it takes all kinds.  Yes, I have called Libertarians naive.  I apologize for having offended you, and I'm certainly not impressed when folks say if you vote for candidate x then y will win (recall that Gore's supporters main reason for asking you to vote for Gore was that if you didn't, then Bush might win.  That's peurile and pointless) but I'm sure there's no practical way to return to Jefferson's agrarian utopia wherein one is free to run one's plantation anyway one wants.  As Spock said, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  

[angus]

I think I understand everything US senate candidate and gun-nut Carla Howell sent me in the mail in 2000 when she was running for US senate against Edward M. Kennedy and Jack E. Robinson.  And I think I generally understand most of the literature I was provided with in that same year when I went down to the Libertarian party's HQ in Cambridge to get some of their literature to study.  Moreover, I am in agreement with many of their general positions.  I, too, support complete abolition of capital punishment, and decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution.  In fact, I feel very strongly in agreement with the LP in those areas.  But then, those are social issues, and social issues are somewhat trivial, imho, and do not rise to the level of affecting my vote.  Economic issues do, however, and that same literature pointed out the virtues of, for example, school "choice" (i.e., taking money out of school districts that most need it and putting it into school districts that least need it) and abolition of the IRS.  You tell me you don't smell the plutocracy in there?  Seriously, man, removing the safety nets that provide basic food, shelter, and clothing to those in need will create a criminal class.  I don't blame you if you don't hire me because I can't read and write, so don't blame me if I rip off your car because the greedy won't give me a break.  See how that works?  Republicans are often accused of being plutocratic, and I can understand why (imagine Bush's daddy answering the debate question in 1992 from the young black woman about store purchases.  Man, folks like George Bush really don't know what it's like to need.  But these guys are at least somewhat mainstream when it comes to public expenditures.)  

[angus]

Angus - you're sounding like a liberal Democrat.

If you rip off my car, I don't care how many people didn't hire you because they were 'greedy', I'm still going to blame you because you chose to take a criminal action. The so called safety net has it's own problems, it can create a lazy class that believes they are entitled to things.

I'm going to tell you what I told another guy in a different post - libertarianism is a package deal. Implemented over time(instant implementation of any style of government brings disaster) libertarianism would lower prices of goods(both by lowering taxes and lowering regulations that cost businesses money, plus the added tax revenue from drugs would shift the load), create more jobs(with lower prices comes higher demand, so more labor will be needed to fulfill that demand) not to mention it will be easier for people to start their own businesses. Is everything the Libertarian party platform contains perfect? No, but there is no such thing as a perfect political platform. I believe the benefits libertarianism could bring far outweigh the potential downsides. Let's also not forget that both the Democrats and Republicans would likely still hold many positions even if the Libertarian Party came to power, so there would be many checks to ensure that things did not go too far.

Man, if I had a nickel for every time someone on this forum told me I was a closet Democrat or sound like a liberal I'd have, like, a quarter by now I think.  Ha.  yeah, I was trying to raise the ire pollster Vorlon mostly, an unabashed libertarian, I think.  Yeah, I surrender, I don't understand that group very well.  I have a nice textbook at home which I bought for a graduate-level Economics course I took.  Easy A.  The thing was, I was convinced that the guys who came up with Price Theory were republicans.  Then I learned about the Libertarians, who, to oversimplify, are Republicans without the nastiness of neo-con hawkishness and feigned religiosity.  Sounds like a good deal, till you read some of the fine print.  Generally, I don't disagree that we're overregulated, overtaxed, and that the environmental laws put in place in the 70s actually stifle creative ways to deal with waste.  But I don't think I'm wrong about Jeffersonian democracy (rich white males ought to control their own destiny) being the underlying tenet of modern Libertarianism.  Sounds good to me too.  And the whole concept of Personal Responsibility (something that the GOP also likes to give lip-service to) is something we ought to be talking about more.  We're a sue-happy, entitled society.  Libertarians get consternated with that.  So do I.  But the free-for-all mentality, extreme social darwinism is a bit off-putting to poor white trash like me.  I'm not sure I coulda made it if it hadn't been for Pell Grants and Social Security after my father's death in my 8th grade year.  So I'm a conservative (sort of) with just a bit more compassion than I see in folks like Carla Howell.  That's why I'm a Bush Republican (for the moment.)  That, and I really would like to see Kerry keep his Senate seat.