Yes, and yes.

America is that polarized, and when people with more nuanced views speak up, they tend to get shouted down immediately by the "side" that sees some aspect of "the other side"'s views in the nuance, drowning them out in the noise.

Want to make a nuanced point in a discussion about gun control? You're probably from Kenya, too. Want to make a subtle distinction in a debate about investment banks, or energy policy? You must hate poor people, or the planet, or...

Net, we (or at least I) tend not to get involved in political discussions, as I'm almost invariably going to have to spend more time arguing about how I'm not actually a filthy lib'ral or whatever, than about the point I'd wanted to make in the first place, so fuck it. You guys have fun shouting yourselves hoarse and slapping yourselves on the back for how hateful you can be towards random strangers on the internet.

Or if you advocate more Libertarian principles/discussion, you're immediately told to "move to Somalia". Yes, I've gotten that one on HN even, IIRC.

I guess it depends on exactly how "Libertarian" a view one is espousing.

"Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire!" Yeah, that guy needs to move to Somalia. Not so he can experience what that degree of government-free state is actually like, but rather so the rest of us don't have to put up with that kind of idiocy.

Just because you can't conceive up voluntary methods of community-funded fire-protection services, doesn't mean the concept is "idiotic".

I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.

Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire.

The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll come up to your property line and make sure the fire doesn't spread, but otherwise just stand there, watching your shit burn.

This actually happens, and I have exactly zero sympathy for the people who don't pay in.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "idiocy": people who claim to be Libertarian, but whose attitude is more, "Fuck you, I've got mine!" punctuated by, "Oh, shit! Someone expend community resources to help me with this!" You don't get to have it both ways; either you contribute meaningfully to the upkeep of the society whose membership you wish to benefit from, or you don't get to benefit from participation in that society.

EDIT: Sorry, I guess, if my tone is dismissive or offensive. I'm just sick to death of people walking around, talking a "Taxes Я theft!" position, but who expect to benefit from the things that those taxes pay for.

How do you handle housing where owners share at least one wall with their neighbors?

If it were up to me, I'd make owning property with a "party wall" contingent upon membership in some form of home-owner's association, the dues of which are used to pay the dues to such a community fire brigade, as well as things like insurance on the common parts of the building, and such.

I'm not sure how you'd handle delinquency in paying those dues, but it would probably be somehow legally actionable.

EDIT: It's probably somewhat moot, anyway, as the overwhelming majority of these dues-based fire brigades exist in predominantly rural areas, where party walls aren't typically a thing.

"Or, are the people with more complex views (i.e., having both liberal and conservative viewpoints) just less likely to speak out?"

In my experience it's more that people with complex viewpoints get some combination of shouted down by zealots on either side or sick of arguing with ideologues who aren't capable of having rational discussion with an open mind.

Basically the "us against them" message has been sold the members of both parties and prevents intelligent discourse.

The issue with having complex views is that minority opinion doesn't really matter in a democracy. So people gravitate towards one of two largest pieces of the pie and tie their beliefs in to match that pie.

Even if someone subscribes to say "85%" of "most liberal beliefs and ideologies" they're still a liberal/Democrat and will be held to believe 100% of the "commonplace beliefs".

This is why all Republicans are blanket-washed as religious nutcase, global warming denying bigots. While all the Liberals are caricatures of 1984's Thought Police.

As non-american leaving here for 15 years now I think that Americans like binary options. Good/evil, democrat/republican, socialist/capitalist.

Often the media enforces that.