I understand affiliations, although I'll have to take your word for it about the young republicans, What I was trying to do is bring out the point that in the w

I understand affiliations, although I'll have to take your word for it about the young republicans, What I was trying to do is bring out the point that in the world of ideas there are libertarian ideas that are separate from the the Libertarian Party, and so when we talk about ideas we don't necessarily need to find an actual affiliation with a particular party. Many people, particularly conservatives, seem to be aligning with libertarian ideals, even if they have no interest at all in the Libertarian party. A political idea never needs a party, it exists as an intellectual construct. Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian, I align most closely with progressives, who don't have a viable party in the United States today, but I appreciate a lot of the work and ideas of conservatism, libertarianism, left-wing labor, and social democrat. Isn't it far more interesting and valuable to talk about the world of ideas: libertarian, progressive, fiscal conservative, social conservative, fiscal liberal, social liberal, social democrat, socialist, lassez faire capitalist, and so on, than about specific parties, or to haggle over whether a person's party affiliation is the Republican Party when in fact it is a libertarian idea that is expressed. Isn't that just letting a party set the boundaries of the debate? The ideas need to be the focus of the debate if we're to accurately discuss the work of an individual, regardless of their nominal party affiliation.