“I have anecdotally found that MOST libertarians come from one side or another and most (very few are onirignally libertarian from when they first started voting), and while not in danger of “relapsing”, most say that if they HAD to pick one of the 2 main candidates in lieu of 3rd party or refraining, defer to the side they “came from””

Thank you. That’s kind of a real answer! I did hear it here first… but didn’t Todd ban us from this thread? Should we really be here? Isn’t that a violation of his property rights???

No scientific study here… just from talking to people.

For everyone like Barr, the ex GOPper who is gung ho gun rights and anti strong federal govt, but not so focused on drugs or gay marriage, you have a Rob Kampia, who is the gay director of the MPP.

I have settled happily in the middle:

What’s the point in having lower taxes if you’re not going to use that extra money to buy drugs?

And what’s the point in doing drugs if you’re not going to then play with guns?

2 things here, one serious the other a joke and serious:

1) These kinds of people are all over the place… perhaps it is because people like to be unique. Saying you are a plain vanilla (technically an oxymoron) Republican may not get the cute chick in the law library to give a shit about you. But if you’re “libertarian on economic issues, and ‘pragmatic’ on social issues” you now sound different… unique… not just the typical dem or gop who hits on her all day.

From now on, my new way to describe myself is: “I transcend labels… I’m a republican on economic issues, a democratic on most social issues, yet back to being a republican on gun rights and affirmative action” Sounds much better than “a libertarian” for roughly saying the same thing, doesn’t it?

2) There’s a HUGE contradiction in how your friends think. In the same breath they are both for and against ‘armed thugs imposing their will, by force, applying rules based not on some objectively derived moral authority, with no reverence for my natural rights’. Just that they prefer such armed thugs to be wearing blue for some reason?

“And I have yet to hear a good reason why, if a non-libertarian social-utility argument can make you comfortable compromising on, say immigration, or drug policy, or DOMA (I love that example, because a so-called “liberal” president signed that, and I have never forgiven him for it), then why is it NEVER acceptable to take an antidiscrimination law as a compromise?”

You heard it here first. I would consider voting for a libertarian-ish person whose primary non-libertarianism stance is a favor for anti-discrimination laws. ie: pro gun, pro drug, anti redistribution of wealth, free market health care, no minimum wage, etc.

Presidential candidate A: wants to eliminate the estate tax and all capital gains taxes; favors deregulating most industries. Is against US entering into any “green” treaty. Wants to ban affirmative action and all anti-discrimination laws; BUT will increase the defense budget; build a border fence; severely restrict immigration from any non-European country (there’s precedent for this one, I didn’t make it up); wants broad war powers in the executive, including a carte blanche on detentions; wiretapping by NSA; power to seize library records without subpoena. Wants a federal ban on same-sex marriage. As governor of his state, he appointed judges who vowed not to overturn old state laws making consensual homosexual sodomy punishable by imprisonment (let’s pretend Bowers v. Hardwick hasn’t been overturned yet). Is against abortion under any circumstances. Reads the first amendment to permit mandatory school prayer.

Candidate B: has the opposite views on EVERYTHING.

I would think, if libertarians believe what E5 describes, then the direction in which they are willing to compromise could go either way and you’d get about an equal number of libertarians (from among those who actually decided to vote in that awful year) for each candidate. But in reality, do you really think it would be about even? I don’t think so. But this is a real question. Not rhetorical. You guys know more libertarians than I do. I’ll accept your answer.

And I doubt there’d be much support for an amnesty for all drug gang members who’d committed violent crimes (as opposed to just use and sales crimes) — even the ones who had merely shot DEA agents, who truly hardcore anarcho-capitalists might argue were acting in self-defense.

P.S. Maybe I’ll try addressing gay marriage as an example in a new entry tomorrow. Haven’t pissed anybody off on _that_ topic yet, so I may as well.