Glad you asked: Libertarian philosophy has no future as a social movement in the modern world. It will always be viable as a 'personal philosophy' however for those with the resources to opt off the grid and live on their own privately owned mountain top. For the rest of the world, increasingly squeezed for land, jobs, food, and the need for peace (and the growing realization that we are, indeed, dependent upon each other for our survival and quality of life) the idea of a world full of rugged individuals operating without any social cohesion seems positively nineteenth century.

Ron Paul (and I'm sure he is a very nice man) is a nineteenth century candidate running for office in the 21st century. He is also uniquely American. His philosophy is riddled with holes. He (like his fellow Republicans) say they want government off the backs of the people but he is still fervently anti-choice. how do you reconcile that contradiction?

Libertarian philosophy is inherently elitist: the obsession of mainly middle-class white males who believe wrongly that 'government is the problem' (in the words of Ronald Reagan, who set a record deficit in government spending) and who resent paying taxes for anything they don't believe in. The rest of the world shakes their heads in disbelief....