welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)

[Everett]

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.

Don't worry, we already do.

[Everett]

Don't worry, we already do.

well, ok if you say so.

Complain all you want, but as long as you and the other Libertarians have that elitist attitude that John Dibble has consistently spoken out against, moderate libertarians aren't going to be terribly interested in joining some batsh**t crazy party. Given that neither major party is currently perceived as being particularly conservative on economic issues, right now would be the optimal time for the Libertarian Party to moderate its stances somewhat and start appealing to disgruntled voters whose conservative fiscal views aren't being satsified by either major party. I don't see how such a move would be spineless.

But if you want to continue blaming the general population for not being sufficiently extremist and deliberately excluding everyone who isn't a hardcore fiscal conservative, then go ahead. Continue being an insignificant third party.

To answer the original poll question, though - corporate welfare irritates me the most.