Love fest is over, now I'm disputing again.

There are many different views to dissect that. Your support for Democracy is limited to a certain extent, just like mine. We don't just pick one or the other, we try to apply the most aspects of it that we like.

Only if you think the majority of opinion, minus what is considered basic human rights, is still debatable beyond a vote.

Frankly the most frustrating thing about libertarianism is that it utterly ignores just how long the common peasant had to fight to get a say in anything. It treats it as if "the peasants are dumb, fuck it return to monarchy, or oligarchy, or a goddamn king."

Libertarianism is reactionism. That is, you see a "welfare queen" once, you ignore that half the CEO's and inventors were raised by mother's who had to at some point used some government program or another to get where they are. This country, and any for that matter, has historically always been better for giving people the "benefit of the doubt". Sure, you're a sucker some times. One new company can employ way more people than the number of people who take advantage of the system though. America, the motto below the statue of liberty, used to understand that.

You see that one Mexican crossed the border and sold drugs, you ignore that a million others crossed the border and joined the military, or started a radio station, or opened a "Roberto's Tacos" (which is excellent btw if you're ever on the West Coast).

It ignores the good. It de-evolves the country. It embraces the evil of the world and says "this is people, this is who they are, we can't trust them. Everyone for themselves." Fuck that. I'm a person, I like us.

Not a serious person on earth does not accept that a "welfare queen" does not exist, nor that there will be a drug dealer at some point crossing the border.

What my own personal philosophy, which ironically at my sentient life's beginning would have been considered moderate, then later became through no fault of my own liberal, than later progressive for all intents and purposes, understands a bit about human behavior, accepts it, then does not blame humans for it.

The day there is not a child that through luck and circumstance cannot grind their way out of poverty, I will completely accept the libertarian view on government's role.

Until that day I expect my tax dollars to go in portion, to helping those less fortunate and blameless achieve a glint of what the makers of this country intended possible for everyone.

Yes, that means government, (by the people and for the people not on accident in the wording) has to have more power than a goddamn corporation.

I say fuck libertarians until you get that basic human empathetic principle.

What is the most fucked up is that it is human empathy which makes us stronger... Stay with me if you even read this. We're weaker than any predator, we don't have fur, we can only digest a fraction of what just about any other animal can digest. The human species is where we are because we help eachother. We stop doing that and the lions and bears eat us, even the UFC fighter and ninjas, and little microbes make us sick and die.

Libertarianism and where it agrees with these beaten children of conservatives and teleprompter cowboy tough guys like O'Reilly and Bush Jr. says that we don't need eachother. We pull ourselves up by the boot straps...

No. Others help us up. But society, which is government, needs to help. Einstein, Aristotle, Lincoln, Washington, whoever the fuck. Given 0 opportunity would have done that much. Give them something and see what happens.

___

Now, if you skip here or ignore the whole thing, let me pre-empt the fundamental argument for.

At the core I get it. I get that some say if you stop supporting people they'll excel or not and the world will be better. If you push the bird from the nest it will fly and that government keeps them in the nest (you or prayerfails can even use that in your next bullshit debate, "Government doesn't let baby bird fly." Unfortunately Prayerfails is too fixated on this issue to suddenly become creative or he would have thought of it already.)

The problem is when inevitable mistakes inherent in any system of 300 million plus people are mistaken for either; those mistakes being the goal (what Fox talks trash about liberals all day every day) or that those mistakes are majority (unfortunately what most libertarians and independents believe).

Balance in all things is important. Government. Oversite. Money. Standing up. That is the argument. Libertarianism is not balanced. It is survival of the fittest in which case at some point the lions and bears eat all the people.

I'm fairly certain the tea party was like an eclipse.

You had two fundamentally unpopular and more times than not opposing views, pure libertarianism and far, far right republicans converging for... god knows what, miracle, Koke brothers, whatever,

But as the shade passed over the earth and everyone got over how impressive it looked they began to realize they were two completely separate things that just happened to pass some common ground at whichever point they did such.

The whole thing is mysterious to me in the way the tides are mysterious to Bill Reilly but the end result is less than 25% approval rating for the tea party, not a presidential candidate claiming the once mighty party for their own,

and unfortunately some libertarians trying to pick up the scraps of their close flight to the sun in the hopes of making something of it.

At its philosophical core Libertarianism is hard, hard core republican minus Jesus. It is also hard, hard core liberal minus government. Both major parties are co-dependent on those ideas, republicans go extinct without jesus juice, liberals abandon government and they have nothing.

Take from that what you will. Just an observation.

True dat. If republicans switched to being Libertarian, there would be far more dominance in Libertarianism. There will be, of course, the people who believe that big government is important and will continue to vote Democrat, but this post-modern era likes the idea that has been floating around for awhile, since possibly Democratus.