[nsxwolf]

Why are libertarians the only group held to a pure ideological standard? No one blinks when they meet a conservative or liberal with a few positions that go the other way.

For example, I frequently hear liberals say that if libertarianism were pushed to its logical extreme, you'd end up with Somalia. For some reason, liberals are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it pushed to its extreme.

[jbooth]

Because libertarians define themselves in terms of pure ideology?

US modern liberalism, on the other hand, has basically no pure ideological component other than beliefs in humanistic morals, pragmatism and empiricism. (And, of course, pandering from politicians). Most of us really distrust overly strong ideologies, so that's what we poke fun at. Liberalism isn't the opposite of libertarianism in terms of ideology, we're not in favor of nationalizing industries, it's the opposite where we don't think there's a one-size fits-all narrative to define everything.

[dragonwriter]

> For example, I frequently hear liberals say that if libertarianism were pushed to its logical extreme, you'd end up with Somalia.

I only ever see that in discussions where libertarian participants attack every criticism drawn from real-world experience with "but, that's only because of government, but in a real libertarian system, that wouldn't happen".

> For some reason, liberals are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it pushed to its extreme.

Except in the real world, where conservative arguments often start with some caricature of what leftist ideology pushed to an extreme would be presented as exactly what everyone even mildly to the left of them actually wants, at a minimum, and immediately. (And, yes, the reverse happens from liberals to conservatives frequently, too.)

[jkestner]

Well put.

I try to split beliefs between small-l libertarianism for what I believe (which is not ideologically pure), and capital-L Libertarianism for the party platform. It's the only way to reconcile liberals and conservatives with their presumptive parties, though Libertarians, not having won anything, aren't as compromising.

[eli_gottlieb]

>For some reason, liberals are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it pushed to its extreme.

Well, it helps that liberals are not leftists. "Leftist" begins at social democracy (think of Elizabeth Warren) and goes from there.

[s73v3r]

"Why are libertarians the only group held to a pure ideological standard?"

Because they keep espousing positions that have proven to be terrible ideas. They forget about history, and why things like government regulations came about.

[dnautics]

I'm not sure libertarians are not opposed to regulation, they just require regulations to have a rational basis, and be restricted in scope. For example, not allowing murder is certainly a regulation, and I'm pretty sure libertarians generally are ok with that regulation.

Not all but some libertarians are arguably more familiar with history, because they understand the degree to which regulation historically has been twisted (generally: to screw over the poor), wheras their detractors have been sold the line that exists to defend the status quo on any given regulation.