[errcorrectcode]

You think, based on what specifically? I don't think you know the history or how it was legitimized. Thom Hartmann has spent a few hours on this very subject across various shows. Checking facts, he gets them right every time. Cato (climate change deniers with phony IPCC reports), Koch (dirty industries tax write off), and Reason Foundation (libertarian grooming factory by rich reporters and rich celebrities pushing a viewpoint, not academics or independent professional journalists) often promulgate ideas that aren't helpful to anyone except the rich and those who vote against their own interests with an "alternative flavor" of "freedom" that isn't free for anyone but the well-off.

Generalizing all political systems together is intellectually lazy and lacks nuance. Extreme utopian ideals like communism, libertarianism, and anarchism don't scale in the real world. I think you need to learn more about each of them in detail before you write it off as tribal "muh green team is better becuz it's mine." You're coming across as lacking in knowledge, experience, and a leg to stand on and going for a cheap shot.

Practical is somewhere in the middle that gets things done and considers enough peoples' needs. There are dumb ideas, like for-profit healthcare, for-profit policing, "everyone picking themselves up by their bootstraps (as misinterpretation of a children's parable)", hyper-individualism, and doing away with government (anarchy, anarcho-capitalism).

[cherrycherry98]

I stated that it was rooted in enlightenment thinking, to be more specific it is an amalgamation of classical liberal ideas supporting individual liberty and limited government. Ideas espoused by philosophers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and even Lao-Tzu. These are ideas worth understanding.

I gave no defense of it other than to imply that should not be dismissed as total manipulation by rich people. I agree with your assessment that we best avoid utopian ideals and the laisse-faire and anarchist libertarians take things way too far. You clearly have an issue with some contemporary brand of libertarians, and I think a lot of that is valid.

> You're coming across as lacking in knowledge, experience, and a leg to stand on and going for a cheap shot.

I think this was unwarranted and I don't appreciate it.