Being libertarian because you want to smoke pot versus not trusting a authority that has the power to ban it at the state/federal level. My aggravation since being a high schooler is how the former became the household definition, because the mode averaged person has an allergy to cynicism for some gods' forsaken reason. These naive idealists, coinciding with single-issue fuckwads, are so invirtuously useless for society that the proggie NPC has a point when he paints a libertarian as a social loser living in fantasies. Then we have anarcho-capitalism, a designation stemming from humans irresistible urge to subdivide into counterproductive tribes, to be divided and conquered by the outside culture. Any hypothetical minarchist state and ancapistan would be indistinguishable in practice.
Paleoconservative/paleolibertarian would be great brands if they weren't syllablistic vomit doomed to irrelevancy to the average Westerner. Would someone notable start a movement that isn't complete anathema to social marketing, but not so vague as to be amorphously inclusionary? I propose the axiomatic party. Principled yet without delusion, unique, and only slightly more grating to pronounce than "Democratic" or "Republican". I suggest taking a lesson out of Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy class, sticking to uncomfortable, unambiguous social truths as a serious science. Of course the conditions in Starship Troopers were different, where hard men emerged out of truly hard times, and not bread and circuses limbo we're stuck in.
If my axiomatic ideal were attempted in my lif, neurotypes and grifters would just pervert the meaning like they did to liberalism. Principled will be confused with being a dense zealot. But really, libertarianism needs to rebrand.
I think people should be able to open a coffee stand or a bar without having to study/memorize thousands of pages of regulations and get a bunch of licenses and permits. But if you make your customers sick you should be punished quite severely for it, more so if you're making your customers sick out of negligence or are trying to cover up the fact you're doing it.
I also think bums should be "out of sight; out of mind" but also think that if a man in a suit and tie wants to drink a beer while on his way back from work that should be OK provided he isn't causing trouble.
Similarly, "youths" wearing gang colors and flashing gang signs shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun into a store, but a clean-cut man with a his wife and children ought to.
I don't know what that makes me politically.
Should be just up to the owner. That's pretty libertarian to say it's his property -- he can do what he wants. This is de facto discrimination against blacks, so you're a pretty extreme libertarian for America.
Where I am in WA they made open carry a "right" in a lot of places because too many property owners where banning the clean-cut men out with their wives and kids from carrying. But that also comes with the "youths" also having the "right" to open-carry.
I like the idea of clean-cut men having the inalienable right to carry into a store since if the store bans it they don't have the reciprocal obligation to ensure the safety of their customers, but I also don't want gangbangers to have that inalienable right.
I think I'm just not an egalitarian: I think one's rights to a certain extent should be in proportion to one's obligations and contributions to society. And I don't like the idea that decent people are forbidden from doing a thing because to allow it means the dregs of society must also be allowed to do it.
This is along the lines of a libertarian meritocracy:
Your freedoms are limited, until you earn the rights to those freedoms.
It's how it should be, anyway.