Libertarians are as wide on their ideals as pointing to a center left lib and a center right repub - that space between is where the Libertarians live and that's why it's so hard to get behind them.

One that comes to mind who likes to be called a libertarian holds every belief that most libtards do, EXCEPT he likes and owns guns. Well as much as I HATED mcCain, I wouldn't have voted for this guy because one very small move and he was BO.

Likewise There are super conservative libertarians who are for gun control. "Reasonable" gun control, what ever THAT means.

I know the same can be said for conservatives, but pretty much you do know where a Republican conservative stands on the issues.

Last election I raised money for Rand even though I knew he would not be selected, I even had his signs in my yard, but after the convention, they came down and Romney signs went up. I think Rand would have made a better running mate, but that's just my opinion.

I couldn't put for his wacko father for anything. Looney toon.

I do have my limits, zero tolerance for gun control and I'm pro life, I'm very fiscally conservative, but those are just the three big ones.

Do any of us have a complete understanding of the universe? I'd give him somewhat of a break.

Or you could look at it as an opportunity to perhaps educate him!

I doubt he understands the proper concept, and he's no groveling M. Theresa. But this is the problem, that he doesn't know and uses the package deal version blocking out consideration of a rational approach when we need a leader heading in the right philosophical direction. He's a very impressive individual undermined by bad and weak philosophy, if only in the form of bromides undermining his own implicit ethics demonstrated in his life, apparently not understanding what realm he is missing.

While we have welfare, and SS, we need borders. Further, we are not a sovereign nation without borders. We cannot be the first nation without borders else the entire world will come here. I'm a software developer and it would be one of the first tech industries that would get diluted. software development would quickly turn into a minimum wage job. which is another reason why a nation has to control it's immigration. had we done that 20 years ago, McD's might be paying a higher wage now.

I just think Ron Paul came off as radical. Even though I disagreed with him on monetary policy, I probably would have voted for him and gone to his fundraisers if he had gotten the nomination. I certainly would have if Clinton had won. I wanted Paul over most of the Democrats, probably even over Obama.

Regarding our borders, the very concept of nation states with borders is in the process of disappearing. Borders aren't that big an issue for me. I think it's horrible to look the other way when people cross the border illegally, but a sensible policy would reflect that goods, data, and people cross the borders so easily that they're not as important as they used to be.

You think Ron Paul needs toning down? What about Rand?
Conservative in this regard means US first which means respecting our borders
The social policies I don't see a problem with

"Which is why a Libertarian leaning conservative is what's needed."
I guess it depends on what "conservative" means. If it means conserving stuff or not taking any radical action, that's great. If it means buying into the left/right yelling match, it won't work unless the libertarian conservative gets almost all people who are on the right side of the left/right children's quarrel and most of the people who are not into politics. I'm thinking of a toned-down Ron Paul. A toned-down Ron Paul could win.

Yes, it probably is weird, but he's not a candidate yet either.

Then it's weird that it hasn't been asked yet.

Agreed, LetsShrug, but no comment is sometimes an option if the question isn't directly being asked at the time.

No disagreements on 1). I said that the penalty for treason was death. Snowden isn't totally innocent. While what he did can be called meritorious, it can't be called "right". This is a very hard judgment to make precisely because we no longer live in a free society with objective law. I really don't think I can come to a clear, objective stance on Snowden. The Snowden situation is very challenging. Regarding the NSA and their leader, they ought to be taken down, but ... who will do it?

Again, I think you are attempting to thrust your own definition of selfishness into Dr. Carson's words, thus distorting them far past his intent. Consideration does not mean taking orders from, it only means a recognition of other and respect for that other to be self-directed.

An inconsiderate/narcissistic person attempts to assert control over others as their modus operandi. They belittle consideration because in their own minds, their methods, concerns, values, are all that matters.

Yes, but it's worse than that because he is missing so much philosophically. Staying "cool" is not nearly enough and not the solution to the fundamental threats facing this country.

Carson is an impressive and accomplished individual in many ways (more than Powell and Palin), and has some common sense views where they are sadly lacking in some areas (especially in comparison to Obama), but he has no philosophy to back up the good in him, instead embracing platitudes that are hopelessly inadequate for the fundamental task at hand, and/or have led to or excused the worst, with him having no clue how or why. Look at some of his interviews prior to the "Prayer Fest" where Obama made him famous, and you find thoroughly conventional political ideas dominating some common sense observations.

Nowhere do we see a straightforward, principled emphasis on the rights and freedom of the individual. To the extent being VP matters at all, which is primarily 2nd in line in case of loss of the President, then his lack of principled qualifications to be President also disqualifies him for VP (and Congress). We would wind up with a more articulate and intelligent version of Bush.

1) So was Eichman following orders, but the NSA director has been worse, deliberately giving orders hidden from Congress and the President, while urging the President(s) to make policy and Congress to pass laws,both of which slip in an NSA private agenda along with it. The NSA director lied to Congress when asked what it was doing. Watch the Frontlines documentary. That isn't the only source, but it condenses the history and the evidence available in one place without having to dig through a lot of articles and videos.

2) The penalty for treason is execution, not a brief jail time. You can't have it both ways because you want to make an exception. If there is an "exception" because the laws are in fact ensnaring him in a false treason, then the exception is from the accusation, not a compromised punishment that makes no sense for either side.

3) Long jail time means long for NSA and zero for Snowden. The "rule of law" is a principle for a free society with objective law, not a catch-all excuse for any law. Respect for the law does not mean respect for statism. The witness protection program is a method, within the law, to protect the innocent -- Snowden, not NSA.

As much as I like Dr. Carson, if he runs as a 3rd party the only thing it will do is split the vote on the right, he would not be elected and neither would be whoever the Republicans put up and Hillary Clinton WILL be elected - Just exactly like happened in 93 when the little general, Ross Parole split the vote on the right and gave the election to Bill Clinton.

I 'm with you

Yea that 's one we are dubious about.

He has embraced the stock false alternative between "narcissism" and deference to others. The "traditional" definition package deals sacrificing others and rational self interest as a standard as an excuse to reject both. Rational self interest is thereby omitted from consideration by linguistic fiat, as "consideration for others" is elevated to take its place making rational discussion of political controversies impossible. Altruism means living for others as the standard of morality, not others telling you what to do.

I'm not as enthused about Carson as a lot of people among Tea Party, libertarian, conservative and (some) objectivist friends. He talks like a libertarian, and while I think he's a rational, benevolent and level-headed individual, I do not think he's anything close to being Presidential material. He strikes me as a half-conservative, half-libertarian populist with a "nice guy" streak that translates into a serious tendency to acquiesce to yet more altruism-based statist advancement.

This collection of quotes isn't what I'd call a great compilation for changing that perception either. Looking at them critically, there's a mixture of a few sound attitudes on freedom and self-reliance with a whole lot of truisms and bromides of the "stay informed and get involved" variety that you hear from any random ad blurb.

I don't even like him as a potential VP pick. Fully as important as getting a genuine Constitutional Republican as our 2016 Presidential nominee is getting a genuine Constitutional Republican as our 2016 VP candidate. The next election is not just for 2016, but for 2024 as well. The next VP candidate needs to be as strong Presidential material as the Presidential candidate himself, because we cannot afford another cipher like GHWB, Quayle or Cheney throwing the 2024 GOP campaign into a game of RINO 52-pickup by default.

Carson's popularity reminds me a little of the Colin Powell popularity back when Powell was being bandied about as GOP Presidential material: enthusiasm based on superficial elements and a couple of good public statements, but no investigation of the whole ideological picture of the man - with seriously disappointing consequences when that ideological picture became clear.

He also reminds me of Sarah Palin - a bit of a dilettante who enjoys the attention but doesn't come across as someone with a grasp of the seriousness of the situation we're in, much less a commitment to the kind of radical, principles-based agenda that will be needed to mop up this mess and turn the tables on the gargantuan, slobbering leviathan pig looming before us and its dangerous collectivist death-throes.

It would be great if we could fuse Rand Paul's (apparent) commitment to a complete overhaul of the government-vs.-individual equation from top to bottom, with Allen West's no-BS understanding of the national defense minefield we're traversing. Oh wait, we can: Paul - West 2016, or West - Paul 2016. Each has his own set of drawbacks, but both have rock-solid commitment to first principles, and charisma (translates as: electability) to burn. And I think Ted Cruz is interchangeable with either, for the same reasons. Carson might make a good cabinet pick, or better yet, a Congressman. But Presidency or Vice-Presidency? No.

Yes.... I also think there are many who have given up on anyone worth their weight to show up...if one did it might rejuvenate more than you think.

The enemy will use it anyway...they lie and make shit up as it is.. how 'bout we just be honest and let the chips fall. You might be surprised how many appreciate it.

Which is why a Libertarian leaning conservative is what's needed. From what I've seen BenC sounds like that

My idea on why libertarians don't hold more office is the vocal ones are extreme and uncompromising. To win in office, we need one with very modest goals, say to have tax revenue and expenses both grow slower than the CPI or nominal GDP, whichever is less. They need to push for giving tax credits to replace things currently provided by gov't agencies. Maybe all of this is boring, but I always feel like libertarians screaming for upending everything, for taking us back instantly to the level of Welfare spending, military, monetary policy, and drug laws of 150 years ago.