[MadameAxe]

I'm not seeking contentiousness.
Neither am I.

If "libertarianism" is not the "Libertarian Party," then you have just added gasoline to the fire of its non-definition.

Again, what is it?
Hmm. I think this must be somehow key to understanding why many people don't see why l/Libertarians are happy that Ron Paul achieved office, even though it wasn't with an "L" label. To me it doesn't matter what letter you have on your "team" jacket, it's what's inside that counts -- whether you agree with and follow the principle of non-initiation of force.

On that somewhat off-topic note, there are two ideas that seem to me to be worth considering, in the interest of electing superior candidates. The first would be dispensing with parties and their labels altogether, which seems unlikely to happen given the entrenched nature of the "two-party" system. The second, possibly more palatable to the Party rank and file but less so to the "leaders", would be instant runoff voting. (There's another site I had found on this topic, www.fairvote.org, but it seems to be down at the moment).

/ramble...

[rdb3]

Let me tell you now that I truly appreciate your tone in this discussion. I cannot say enough how much I respect those who show respect.

Outstanding.

I happen to like Ron Paul a lot. I take it that that you believe he is actually a libertarian within the Republican Party. I can see that as being fair. But this begs the question as to why many other libertarian politicians do not follow suit.

Care to take on that one?