One cannot be a real libertarian and a Democrat

In the same way, one can be a Libertarian without adhering to the version of it laid out by Ayn Rand Well, sure, I agree with that. I was not saying that libertarians should all be uniform in belief on everything but that libertarianism is FAR from liberalism and we all know that liberals almost always call themselves Democrats and vote that way. Republicans for all their talk of smaller government have just as many anti-libertarian ideas as Democrats, True, but I never said anything about Republicans in the first round. I am not saying nor would I ever say the Republicans are libertarians or anything close. Republicans hate freedom almost (but not quite) as much as Democrats. America is a country where the vast majority of people have no desire to be free. They want big government. Yet despite all this, most Libertarians closely associate themselves with the Republican party. Why is that? It is because they are willing to either overlook or accept these contradictions as either acceptable or right and necessary exemptions to the libertarian orthodoxy. As a libertarian who has never voted Democrat or Republican, if you put a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one of the two, it would be Republican because the Republican party is slightly more responsible with America's money and is slightly more tolerant of an individual's freedom. Note the word "slightly. " That is the only reason some libertarians feel forced to vote Republican since they already know that the best libertarian candidate has no chance of winning until everyone at least understands libertarianism and knows the candidate's name. Because of government schools, most young people now are coming out of those institutions with their minds completely saturated with all of liberalism's ideals. They would not know freedom and personal responsibility if it kicked them in the buttocks. Look at most of the young people on this site and look at their profile where their views are. Do you think they are being educated in free market capitalism and freedom or Socialistic ideas? It is not even close. Similarly, I believe that Democrats' transgressions against liberty as either acceptable enough to be looked past or the necessary compromises necessary for creating a healthy and stable society while not violating what I see are the central principles of Libertarianism: that people should be allowed to live, speak, love and do what they want without government interference as long as they don't cause direct harm to another person. Which is it? Just as an example, I don't think it is acceptable at all to force employers with 50+ employees to cover their health insurance. Health insurance and employment have nothing in common. Employers have one intention when they hire someone: Trade an employees labor for an agreed upon amount of money. End of story. Anything beyond that is a fringe benefit and the government has no business enforcing health insurance responsibilities on an employer nor a minimum wage which interferes with the market forces that drive supply and demand of labor. In general Democrats are very supportive of social libertarian principles and not as much so of economic libertarianism, Yes, Dems usually support an individual's freedom to use drugs and a few other things but like you said, those are social issues, not economic. Most libertarians will give you the freedom to think what you want on social issues but the more important issues for the good of the people are economic issues. Liberalism is destroying this once great country. I do not relish the idea of living in the supposed golden age of economic libertarianism which was the late 19th century and early 20th. Private enterprise may have had almost perfect liberty but it also created toxic fogs in London that literally killed people. No libertarian would support an industry that was producing a fog that killed people so that is a bit unfair of a comparison. If people are being killed, it is the role of government to step in. I cannot imagine any libertarian not agreeing with that. That is part of the role of government - to defend life. On the other hand, government's strangulation of constant and highly restrictive regulations have caused many an enterprising entrepreneur total frustration when wanting to run or start a business and have failed at it. Government has been known to shut down businesses for the most trivial of reason. Government shut down an entire trucking company because two of the trucks had flat tires: . http://www.breitbart.com... Overkill? This is what happens when government gets too big. So just as I imagine my opponent will argue that creating a military is one of the legitimate jobs of the state, I argue that the regulation of large-scale private enterprise is just as vital a function of a government. Regulation of what though? Very large businesses have to hire lawyers left and right just handle the constant inflow of regulation. Our government hates business. Obama's own book refers to him working in the private sector briefly as going "behind enemy lines. " Check out these stories of how government sinks their claws into private business: . http://www.heritage.org... . http://www.bizjournals.com... This one is really a lot of fun: . http://www.businessinsider.com... Did you know that you that in some states like Florida, you need a license to tell me that my living room sofa should go by the window instead of the coffee table: . http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com... I would rather see under regulation than over and truthfully, there is no middle ground. The power of government does not restrain itself. So in summary: I put forward to the voters that being a Democrat is not more conflicting for a Libertarian than being a Republican as being either requires compromises of the ideology's orthodoxy. But making those compromises does not disqualify one from being a libertarian. Again, this debate is not about Republican versus Democrat. You simply cannot be an economic libertarian and a Democrat.