are there any libertarian US states?

[Reignman]

I saw a post about this concerning populism.  I'm not so sure any US states fit the profile, although Alaska comes to mind.  I know many in the NRA are mad about the patriot act.  I guess that can also apply to mountain states (aside from Utah).  I don't think Wyoming has any anti-sodomy laws, and I don't think New Hampshire is socially conservative.

Are there any US states that are fiscally conservative but also at least moderate on social issues?

[MHS2002]

New Hampshire comes to mind.

[??????????]

I saw a post about this concerning populism.  I'm not so sure any US states fit the profile, although Alaska comes to mind.  I know many in the NRA are mad about the patriot act.  I guess that can also apply to mountain states (aside from Utah).  I don't think Wyoming has any anti-sodomy laws, and I don't think New Hampshire is socially conservative.

Are there any US states that are fiscally conservative but also at least moderate on social issues?

Georgia. But I think that could be stretching it.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

New Hampshire is the most libertarian state, but there are certainly a lot of libertarian-minded ("You don't bother me, I don't bother you) folks in the intermountain west.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I saw a post about this concerning populism.  I'm not so sure any US states fit the profile, although Alaska comes to mind.  I know many in the NRA are mad about the patriot act.  I guess that can also apply to mountain states (aside from Utah).  I don't think Wyoming has any anti-sodomy laws, and I don't think New Hampshire is socially conservative.

Are there any US states that are fiscally conservative but also at least moderate on social issues?

Georgia. But I think that could be stretching it.

I don't think Georgia is libertarian. I don't even think there is a Liberatarian state in the South...

[7,052,770]

Alaska and New Hampshire.  Maybe Montana.  none others really.

[Lunar]

Nevada would be a big one, but I would also add New Hampshire, Maine, and Alaska.

Nevada has some of the most lax social and economic laws in the US.  They have low taxes and government regulation combined with prostitution, gambling, etc.

[7,052,770]

Nevada would be a big one, but I would also add New Hampshire, Maine, and Alaska.

Nevada has some of the most lax social and economic laws in the US.  They have low taxes and government regulation combined with prostitution, gambling, etc.

ah I did forget Nevada.
Nevada, Alaska, New Hampshire

[Josh/Devilman88]

FL will be a libertarian state before long.

[English]

Alaska, Nevada & New Hampshire. That's it.

[John Dibble]

FL will be a libertarian state before long.

You're probably right about that. There's a good chance that they'll elect a Libertarian to congress this year.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

in addition to those three, also kind of Delware, Oregon and Wyoming and Montana, and Arizona and Idaho outside of the Mormons.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some of the Atlanta 'burbs might be libertarian... (a lot is a Sunbelty Religious Right wasteland) but rural Georgia is anything but...
Not many social liberals in rural Georgia...

[Lunar]

in addition to those three, also kind of Delware, Oregon and Wyoming and Montana, and Arizona and Idaho outside of the Mormons.

I don't see why Arizona and Idaho could be called socially moderate and I don't see why Oregon would be economically conservative.

[Posterity]

Arizona is not libertarian.  The Phoenix City Council recently voted to build a hotel using taxpayer money, at a cost of some $300 million!  No, Arizona is not libertarian; it's following the current GOP game plan.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[cwelsch]

Outside Atlanta is libertarian, but the South in general is horrible for orthodox libertarians, and great for people who confuse liberty with the confederate-style government.

NH, NV, AK, WY, MT, ID and CO all have good cases for being libertarian, but that's just relative to the other states.  I have a good measure here.  The following graph is a measure of top five states in the libertarian popular vote (presidential race) for every election since 1976 (since they were only on 2 states in 1972).



I'd probably dimiss the outliers that only did it once, but the rest are leigitmately fairly libertarian, so:

Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, New Hampshire are all somewhat libertarian.

Vermont has elected one libertarian state legislator, NH four, Alaska three.  I'd put Vermont and Maine on the list, especially since they HATE gun control.  NH hates taxes.

I'd also say California pre-1990 was very libertarian.  Reagan fit very well there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Vermont and Maine may be against gun control, but they have skyhigh tax rates. Maine has the highest in the country. Anything but libertarian.

[??????????]

Outside Atlanta is libertarian, but the South in general is horrible for orthodox libertarians, and great for people who confuse liberty with the confederate-style government.

That is the form of government that this country was meant to be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

in addition to those three, also kind of Delware, Oregon and Wyoming and Montana, and Arizona and Idaho outside of the Mormons.

I don't see why Arizona and Idaho could be called socially moderate and I don't see why Oregon would be economically conservative.

Arizona, come on, John McCain, Barry Goldwater, Jim Kolbe, Jeff Flake? Lots of Arizona Republicans dislike the religious right. And the Phoenix area is full of lots of wealthy folks who don't care about social issues and just vote Republican based on economics, remember I said except the Mormons (yeah I know Flake is a Mormon but his voting record is more like Ron Paul). The non-Mormons in Idaho are mostly militia-types who don't really care about social issues. And Oregon isn't really economically conservative, but it has become a haven of people coming from California because of taxes, and has no sales tax.

[bullmoose88]

I think we're confusing the term libertarian here.

I think to be a libertarian (either big or small l) you have to have some idealism in you.

now there are plenty of socially liberal and fiscally conservative people, like me, especially in the GOP (but plenty in the Dems)...but they're not really libertarian. Sure they might share some policy views with the libertarians, but philosophically, they're not really alike.

For people like me, I think terms like "Liberal Conservative" or "European Liberal" or "Rockefeller Republican" are more appropriate.

Which goes back to what Angus said, there aren't as many libertarians out there, as the libertarians would like to think. Hence why an ideologically/philosophically driven party such as the LP, rather than a big tent party like the GOP or the dems, will remain on the fringe.

[English]

Outside Atlanta is libertarian, but the South in general is horrible for orthodox libertarians, and great for people who confuse liberty with the confederate-style government.

NH, NV, AK, WY, MT, ID and CO all have good cases for being libertarian, but that's just relative to the other states.  I have a good measure here.  The following graph is a measure of top five states in the libertarian popular vote (presidential race) for every election since 1976 (since they were only on 2 states in 1972).



I'd probably dimiss the outliers that only did it once, but the rest are leigitmately fairly libertarian, so:

Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, New Hampshire are all somewhat libertarian.

Vermont has elected one libertarian state legislator, NH four, Alaska three.  I'd put Vermont and Maine on the list, especially since they HATE gun control.  NH hates taxes.

I'd also say California pre-1990 was very libertarian.  Reagan fit very well there.

Colorado is not libertarian! What about Colorado Springs? That's the most religious right city in the US!! Also Denver & Boulder are economically liberal.
New Hampshire gets my vote. It's socially liberal, but economically very conservative (tax being the biggy).
Alaska is also a contender. Not very religious and full of people who like to keep to themselves and don't like people snooping in their business. Also economically conservative.
...and Nevada of course. Low tax, brothels, quicky marriage ceremonies and divorces, very lax gambling laws.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.