I voted for Browne in 2000 but regret it now. First, Browne pulled some really sleazy stuff in the campaign. And second I am completely behind Bush now.
To say that Libertarians are stoned all the time is just cheap invective. Whether they are stoned or not, you have to refute their arguments.
Whether they are stoned or not, you have to refute their arguments. Most of the arguments I've seen have strong underlying similarity with liberals in that they proceed along the lines, "First, let's abstract away from two thirds of relaity. Next, let me explain the followin..." The two thirds are different than the liberals use, but that much they have in common. To give an instance, they are very big on property rights but do not even bother to explicate who will enforce those rights. When they talk about economics, it's like 19th century: everything about private goods and not a word about public ones. Again, it's not that they offer some different solutions --- those things just don't exist.
In the end, they do look oftentimes like angry fools.