[r9etb]

How very convenient? Are you suggesting that anyone who defends an ideological view point should in fact take up the aegis for the whole spectrum of it?

No -- I was suggesting that you might be invoking "extreme libertarians" in order to avoid discussion of "hard but mainstream" points of libertarian theory.

you've pretty much stated that you see few differences between "libertarians" and Libertarians

Are you perhaps suggesting that libertarianism is not a fixed ideology, but rather anything you happen to say it is? Or would one be correct in assuming that you share many of the same ideals as laid out by the Libertarian Party?

This is, IMO, a gross black & whiting of the issue. It suggests helplessness, or the idea that a community cannot influence it's members without the force of law.

Conversely, the idea that "influence without force of law" is always sufficient is laughable.

Considering that society, in general, is immoral it seems like we're just screwed.

Probably so ... that's the verdict of history, in any event.

[jack_napier]

Are you perhaps suggesting that libertarianism is not a fixed ideology, but rather anything you happen to say it is? Or would one be correct in assuming that you share many of the same ideals as laid out by the Libertarian Party?

To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, he's a conservative, not a Republican.
Like in other countries where they have multi-party systems, you may have multiple 'conservative' parties, but one is considered more conservative than the other (IE in France, Sarkozy vs Le Pen).