are there any libertarian US states?

[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.  

[John Dibble]

I'm wondering why the heck you call us plutocrats.

plutocrat

n : someone who exercises power by virtue of wealth

plu·toc·ra·cy
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

Most libertarians are not wealthy, or even rich. We hardly want the wealthy to rule, we just don't have a problem with them being wealthy. Perhaps we are often individualists, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. And selfish? We're all for private charity after all - heck, I give willingly to charity, and most of the libertarians I know do too. Just because we're against forcing people to donate to charity(welfare via taxes) doesn't mean we're selfish.

You also throw around the word agrarian.

a·grar·i·an    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-grâr-n)
adj.
Relating to or concerning the land and its ownership, cultivation, and tenure.

Relating to agricultural or rural matters.
Intended to further agricultural interests: agrarian lobbyists.

n.
A person who favors equitable distribution of land.

Well, we hardly concern ourselves with agriculture. In fact lots of libertarians work in the tech sector. And the second definition - woo boy, that's way off from what libertarians want. We want people to earn their property, not have it distributed to them.

As I said, I think you just don't understand libertarianism.

[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.)  

[John Dibble]

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

Well, while I think most if not all groups would benefit from libertarianism, I think the middle class would be the one that would benefit most(they are a majority anyways, if I'm not mistaken). The rich and the wealthy are really a small percentage of the population if you think about it.

[cwelsch]

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.

This is about equivalent to say all Democrats are Stalinists and Republicans are Nazis.

I'm not agrarian, I'm anti-agrarian if anything.

[cwelsch]

The way I see it we have two problems in this thread.

1) Thinking the whole state has to be libertarian to qualify here.  It doesn't.  Colorado is the state where the LP was founded, it has libertarian elements.  As a whole, there are plenty of non-libertarians in CO, but overall it has more libertarians than most US states.  By that measure, it's libertarian.  Same for Maine and Vermont, where despite high taxes they have smaller and less intrusive government.  Vermont is weird, it's tax hikes are only about a decade old, but it's the home of Ethan Allen, and it did elect a libertarian to office.  By that measure alone, it's got libertarians.

2) Not agreeing what libertarian is.  In global terms, virtually every American is a moderate libertarian.  More specifically, polls show that 16% of the country tests libertarian on the World's Smallest Political Quiz.  I don't think you HAVE to be idealistic, since I know plenty of cynical libertarians.  You just have to want less government in most areas currently in the political mainstream.  And about 16% agrees with that, Rasmussen showed.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I didn't say racist, I said militia. Not all militias are racist. Remember Helen Chenoweth and who her main supporters were?

and I admitted there can be libertarian Mormons, and cited Jeff Flake as an example.

[MN-Troy]

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.

What Libertarian candidate has a chance of being elected in Florida?

[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.

What Libertarian candidate has a chance of being elected in Florida?

Frank J. Gonzales, running for Representative for District 21. The incumbent is Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart. There's no Democrate running(in fact, Balart has gone unopposed for the previous 5 elections), so it's essentially a two man race. The reason Gonzales has a chance is because Balart has ticked off the Cubans(55% of the population in that district) by imposing greater travel restrictions to Cuba(even for sending money there, so the people are not able to visit or send money to their families in Cuba) among other various reasons. The LP did an article on him not too long ago: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0408/gonzalez-florida.html

[struct310]

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.

But you are crazy to think that the state is libertarian.  Barry and Jim dont count.  Jims gay and Barrys dead.  Jim of course would be socially moderate.  McCain is more fiscally liberal, but hes incredibly socially conservative.  Flake is a big time social conservative.  I live in Flakes district and have met him many times.