> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied What is the basis for thi

> Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied What is the basis for this assertion? > and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism I don't understand why you are using the word reverting. Are you implying there is something wrong with political conclusions that appear practical or altruistic? > On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing That people exist who pervert a term does not render the term meaningless. > there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation I agree there is no clear-cut libertarian stance on abortion, because there are several confounding factors upon which libertarianism does not opine -- e.g. when does life begin? The libertarian umbrella does indeed ostensibly cover anarchy, and it should not be a surprise that there is a spectrum of belief. If you desire a concrete libertarian platform, you can look to the Libertarian Party. > libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values Can you elaborate on this? By calling it a dead end, you are saying it has no future, but you are basing this on present-day values, as though these values can never change in the future. I am still unsure as to which values you refer. > or with itself.) Libertarianism does indeed cover a spectrum of beliefs. I don't see how that implies that it is a political dead end. Other viable political philosophies cover spectrums of belief (e.g. republicanism, conservatism, populism, liberalism, etc.)