_Probably_ just a typo, imo.

Then again, I've never found two libertarians who could agree on what being libertarian actually means, so maybe not.

For quite a while recently, Libertarian meant "Embarrassed Republican Who Doesn't Want To Admit He Votes Republican Every Election Even Though He Swears He Doesn't Like Either Candidate"

Libertarianism is, at its core, an ethos where skilled people with in-demand skills get to keep all their stuff and pretend that their wealth has nothing to do with other people's inputs. If you want to keep all your stuff, libertarianism is for you. If you want to make it sound like you're being noble when you're actually being selfish, libertarianism is for you.

How many libertarians are poor? How many are minorities? How many are women? The libertarian deck is pretty obviously stacked - it's all about maintaining property rights with zero responsibility; for example, somehow 'taxes' are 'violence', but 'enforcing property rights through the courts and the exact same sheriff that would recover taxes' is 'not violence'. Pick on any libertarian thread and the cloth unravels pretty fast.

The biggest trick the libertarians have pulled, in my opinion, is convincing people that they're the only ones interested in civil rights.

How's that Drug War working out for you? Are you glad that lots of black men are in prison, just like Nixon intended?

Perhaps you should re-read the last sentence in my comment.

Oh sure if I re-read it about 829 more times while CNN plays in the background, I might care about that. Hypnotizing!

Libertarians aren't angels (except perhaps in a relative sense, when considering any POTUS other than Carter elected in my lifetime), but they never get 3% of the vote, for one office. Yet they're some sort of crazy powerful bogeyman that every progressive of correct thought must constantly fear and agitate against on threads that originally had nothing to do with that. Besides didn't you get the memo? Instead of caring about Libertarians, now you're supposed to care about a much smaller and stupider group of statue enthusiasts! They're going to destroy the nation with their passion for old statues! In the meantime please ignore the wars and brutality that the two wings of the mainstream party keep doing...

I don't fear libertarians, I just find them juvenile and annoying. Stop projecting. My point about re-reading my comment was that you were accusing me of the very thing that I said people other than libertarians care about.

This is why I find libertarians fucking annoying, because they just wholesale declare the world to be other than it is. No, they're not a bogeyman, but they do spend a lot of time derailing politics, like when Rand Paul describes government provided universal healthcare as literal slavery of doctors. Yes, the two major parties in the US are fucked, but libertarianism is not the only alternative.

Also, you're a child for revenge-downmodding. When all my comments in time range go down by a point except the ones that specifically you can't downmod, it's stupidly obvious it's you.

I'm not projecting; you're projecting! b^)

Sorry about your internet points. Now that I've regained composure, I'll be sure to upvote you occasionally. You'll make it to the top in no time! I don't think I downvoted all your comments, however? I'm pretty sure I upvoted this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15069956 Bygones!

I'm happy to support any alternative. I feel that any actual change (as opposed to Trump's new-boss-same-as-the-old shtick), in no matter what direction, would have to be an improvement. For instance, I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and he had my vote in the general before DNC wiped their asses with that vote. I haven't voted D or R for President in decades. I guess I can understand being annoyed by libertarians, although I myself am not. What drives me around the bend is CNN reptiles like Jake Tapper or Alisyn Camerota defending the two-faces-one-party status quo and all the wars and brutality that entails. That often takes the form of pointless derailing bitching about libertarians or greens or random online skeptics or whomever, of which yours upthread is a prime example. Sorry... I don't think we'll see the changes we want by starting the effort with a purity test.

I believe it does have the general premise of very limited government, though.

I believe it's more about defending the rights of minorities. Don't forget that the individual is the ultimate minority group.

See, this is what I mean when even libertarians can't agree what libertarianism means ;)

Limited government, except for the massive expansion of the court system, so that everything can be decided post-facto in the courts rather than beforehand with regulations.

That's "whetevergoesarian".

You're absolutely right. It is late at night here but regardless I have no excuse. I have no clue why I typed it that way (fixed the original post since it was within the edit window)

He's using conservative and liberal in their classical senses, whereby conservative connotes restraint in legislating social issues and liberal connotes freedom of the marketplace.

I know you got down-voted and you are wrong about my intentions (it was just a typo) but I up-voted you because I do appreciate that the definitions of liberal and conservative have not always been the same.