Yes, let's discuss this further...

Ryan is right... more and more we see "Libertarian" tags on TV, radio and in print, and more and more they are touting the virtues of the conservative viewpoint.

However, there is a real and measurable difference between what is the platform of the GOP today and what the Libertarian Party stands for. Does everyone agree about what it is that separates them? Lets detail the differences before the discussion goes any further...

The GOP wants to maintain the ability to intervene in foreign affairs (military, economic and political) to ensure US interests are protected. The GOP favors a position where the US takes a leading role within existing alliances and treaty organizations, and is routinely looking for involvement in more of them to further that same goal.

The Libertarians want an end to US involvement in international treaty organizations, and a very limited ability to ally the nation to foreign states. No American lives or treasure is to be risked except in the defense of American liberties and freedoms.

Since the beginning of the last century, the GOP has taken a position where the regulation of certain substances and personal practices that are deemed "harmful" to the individual or society. From Prohibition to the War on Drugs, the Twentieth Century was riddled with policy and practice in GOP platforms where the individual choices available to the citizens of these United States was determined by the Government, and not by the individual.

The Libertarians support a policy wherein there is no regulation, for or against, the use of recreational drugs, alcohol or the use of the same by consenting individual adults. The manufacture, trade and sale of such items and substances would be taxable by the States alone, but the States could not stop such sale or use, because to do so would be to limit personal freedom of choice, which is the sole purpose of the Federal Government to protect.

Both Parties support the Second Amendment, with the Libertarians going so far as the removal ALL regulations on the personal possession of firearms and the manner in which they are kept. Concealed or openly displayed, carried on a person or within a vehicle, no regulations could be put in place that kept someone (anyone) from carrying a legally purchased firearm into such places as a school, playground, bank, post office, government building.

The GOP (at least lately) has been calling for a secure border to the South, specifically in response to the growing number of "illegals" crossing to the North from Mexico. Since 1991, $279 billion dollars have been spent on "securing" this border, and the results have been an increase in the number of illegals each and every year since.

The Libertarians believe that a notion of "free trade" means nothing if it isn't coupled with a notion of "free migration" and call for an end to immigration quotas, limits and regulations. Open borders where new "future citizens" can cross at will is the goal of the Libertarian Party, wherein immigrants will fill demands for entry-level or manual labor positions and create a competitive market environment that will "create wealth" through the lowest levels of income in the country. Certain criteria will exist for citizenship (as the Constitution requires), but for entry into the country, only known criminals or threats to American safety would be refused the status of "prospective citizen".

The GOP has maintained a position since WWII that the government can "trump" the owner of private property if the property in question is deemed of "national significance". This policy of supporting eminent domain is 100% contrary to the Libertarian position, in which the ownership of property is ranked right up there with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Government will NEVER be allowed to seize property, or even use property, without the express consent of the owner, nor will the Government be allowed to assess the value of such property (for the purposes of taxes, say) outside of a fair and free market determination.

Any sort of compulsory service to the Government is antithetical to the Libertarians, and that includes an income tax. All such actions are described as "force" by them in their Party Manifesto, in fact. You cannot institute a tax on the people of this nation without also providing a means by which those that choose NOT to participate in the tax can avoid paying it. Thus, the LP supports a system of taxation like the National Sales Tax, or the Fair Tax, where individuals can consciously avoid the tax, if they so choose.

Since the end of WWI, both the GOP and the Democrats have supported a system of taxation where the more you earn means the more you pay, regardless of whether or not the person paying more gets more benefits. The GOP has long asked that the standards by which such taxes are determined be as low as possible (especially since 1980), but has never seriously looked at changing the means or manner by which it is collected and determined.

Seeing the two side-by-side, surely we must hearken back to what Machiavelli said in Il Principe, right? Realism over idealism, always.

We can say that we'd like to see a 35% reduction in the size, scope and cost of Government in this country, but is it realistic to think that it will happen? Complete deregulation of every single major industry, from drugs and pharmaceuticals to alcohol, tobacco and firearms manufacturing and sales. National speed limits eliminated. Child protection standards to be determined State by State (which seems benign enough, until one realizes that 88% of all pornography regulation is at the Federal level, so what most "conservatives" think of as moral regulations (NOT regulations on morality, mind you) would be out the window. No Federal regulations on what is or is not a "controlled substance".

Imagine 70% of the ACTIVE US military disbanded, and all that remains is the Reserve and National Guard units standing next to what is left of the Army, Navy and Marines (and an almost untouched Coast Guard, it seems)... because the means that such military units would be used is solely and exclusively for the defense of the nation, NEVER for intervention in foreign conflicts. Is THAT something Reagan (or Ryan) could EVER support? Is that what Jefferson envisioned when he sent the US Navy to North Africa to free captive Americans from the Barbary States and protect American trade ships? Is that what Madison thought when he asked for a declaration of war against Great Britain? Is this truly the position that history shows us that the "Founding Fathers" actually held as right and true?

I can see the merit in much of what they (Libertarians) support (smaller, less intrusive government, fair taxation, primary defense of property and wealth, etc), but I question the means by which they hope to see it achieved AND the viability of candidates that operate under their banner. Ryan himself has called Ron Paul (the only nationally known Libertarian candidate in the modern era) a "crack pot" on this very website, and dismissed his calls for change as meaningless dribble more than once.

The popularity of programing that is presented by Libertarians (and the Fox shows aren't the only ones... Mike Church is a Libertarian, as is Glenn Beck... and they are BIG names in talk radio) does not equal support, I know, and maybe it is a harbinger of things to come in the American political arena. However, I don't know that I could ever support (seriously, anyway) a Libertarian candidate.

I do NOT think cocaine, heroine, LSD or even marijuana should be "legally" available to the consenting public in this country.

I do NOT think that the military, political or economic intervention in foreign countries is un-Constitutional nor do I think it morally wrong in every case.

I do NOT think that any candidate can win an election in this country vowing to end Social Security forever, or by doing away with the VA, or ending Federal regulations of immigration policies. To do so is to end a campaign before it ever reaches the ballot.

I do NOT think all Federal regulation outside of the enumerated powers is wrong, but I do agree that too much has been left on the "books" from years gone by, and that not enough has been determined to be "necessary enough" to warrant a Constitutional amendment effort. Knowing that once something is "law" it is very difficult to remove or change should be ENOUGH to make sure that lawmakers are very careful about what passes and what doesn't... or they will not remain lawmakers very long.

It is my biggest problem with people like Beck... there is a degree of naivety and stubbornness in their views that I think makes me not want to take what they say and see as valid serious at all.