attackfish

At the elected level, a lot of the Libertarians in power are Randian, which is why they come to mind, and outside of Libertarian heartlands like Alaska, the tea party mentality rules. Demographically, the tea party is above average in socioeconomic status, very white, and almost exclusively baby boomers. When you suggest cutting anything that benefits them right now (farm subsidies, which are the opposite of Libertarian, or science spending for the ones who work in defense, things like that) all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot. The root of their ideology, as best I've been able to tell, is that yes, they really should be getting all the benefits of society, and those government types, poor people, and immigrents are sealing it from the real Americans like them. If the government were gone, there would be none of this "forced equality" (i.e. socialist fascism, what?) and they (already well off white people) would naturally rise to the top. In Alaska, the long term anti-government feelings make the discussion entirely different than it is here in the bottom forty-eight. And your Libertarianism is much purer and gentler for it.

The thing that gets me about Alaska is that the state government is heavily subsidized by the state's oil, which means that everybody is benefiting from that resource. If it were in private hands, all those benefits would go away.