This post by B12 Solipsism points out some of the inconsistencies of Libertarian philosophy:
Frank Rich discusses Rand Paul, and Paul’s hard-core Libertarianism:
Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.
In other words:
- Abortion: no
- Drug legalization: yes
- Individual freedom: limited
- Business regulation: no
In 1988 I considered myself a Libertarian because I was disillusioned with the two major parties and didn’t want to be identified with either of them. I never liked Republicans and I wasn’t too thrilled with the Democratic candidates. The Libertarian’s talk about “freedom” sounded attractive until I realized exactly what they really meant. Their talk about individual freedom is pure bullshit. They’re really talking about freedom from regulation for corporations, yet they support restricting the rights of individuals to do what they wish with their own lives (abortion, etc) and are generally opposed to civil rights.