Libertarians I’ve met through the years tend to have divergent opinions on issues like abortion, religion, national defense strategies, and immigration. All of these issues are either based on some philosophical precursor which needs discussion before liberty comes into play, are completely unrelated to liberty in their base premises, or are related to other existing conditions which would color the results of implementing libertarian politics. I have had discussions with fervent libertarians on both sides of all these issues.

Those discussions are sometimes, um…lively.

But the core view of minimal government, personal responsibility, the value of free markets, and a rejection of collectivism seem ever-present.

Of course, other self-identifying libertarians might have a different take.

As for Liberty Watch, I’d deem it libertarian by my standards, and would love to see it and more shows like it aired on mainstream television. Whether the larger audiences agree or disagree, at least they’d actually hear the ideas.

I don’t think anyone should take offence to the term; I have been known to be a troll at other blogs. Actually, I would argue that trolls are a good thing (provided that the comment policy is followed). None of us want TLP to become an echo chamber.

Unless you are arguing that he is NOT a troll.

I can’t tell from your post.

“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”

But I am with VRB 100% on this one.

I read a lot of pieces mocking the GOP for being so fractured – and all those the labels – Neocons, SocialCons, CrunchyCons, Rinos, etc. But it sure seems to me that Libertarians have their own set of problems with internal infighting on what Libertarianism “really” means, and internal intolerance for a different outlooks which certain “purists” deem to be “impure.”

Maybe a leftwing libertarian show, but straight out libertarian NOT!

Where’s the discussion of the threat this country faces from Islamo-Fascism?

All I hear on that show is ACLU garbage, “Oh, golly gee, the evil Bush Administration… Imagine that, they were actually trying to protect us from Islamic Terrorists, blah, blah, blah…”

Granted, the show is good on issues such as Drug Legalization, but even on Civil Liberties matters, where’s the discussions of Nanny-State issues like Seat Belt laws, 21-year old Drinking Age, Smoking Bans?

Of course, they can’t talk of those issues, cause those are areas where Democrats are attacking our Freedoms. And we all know how entirely politically incorrect it is, for leftwing libertarians to criticize the Dems.

Are you kidding me?! Glenn Beck? Neal Cavuto? Greta Van Susteren? Sarah freakin’ Palin?!! Hannity?!?!?!?! Boortz, I’ll grant (provisionally at least), but that has nothing to do with whether or not Freedom Watch should become a show on Fox.

I honestly think you may be a bit confused. May I ask what you consider to be the differences between conservative, neoconservative, and libertarian?

Let’s review:

Glenn Beck – raging LIBERTARIAN
Neal Cavuto, Fox VP – libertarian
Alexis Gilmore, Fox Business Pres. – self-described “libertarian”
Greta – friend of Alaska’s libertarian Gov. Sarah Palin
Hannity – 90% libertarian, and best friends with hardcore libertarian Neal Boortz
Greg Guttfield or Red Eye – Self-described “conservative” but actually a flaming libertarian who regularly has libertarian guests on like Nick Gillespie

And, this is real important, Fox has a new columnist, not sure if you all have noticed on the Fox website. His column? “Cowboy Libertarian.”

Getting a libertarian cable news station to go “libertarian,” seems a bit redundant.