are there any libertarian US states?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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