But since you want to continue to bring it up, let's talk about it.

In short, I've changed some and the Libertarian party has changed some, so I no longer fit best with what they choose to platform.

I was 20 the first time I voted in a Presidential election. It was 2000 and I voted for (how's your) Harry Browne. I was fresh off of reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and I had a rather narrow view of the world. A wildly positive reading could see it as "idealistic", but a fairer accounting would call it "naive." To be clear, I'm not saying all Libertarians are naive, I'm saying I was.

My personal philosophy was (and generally still is- but we'll get to that later) socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In 2000, that's what the Libertarian party roughly claimed to be. I wanted small government, free market capitalism, low taxes, personal freedom, pro-choice, equal rights for all including LGBT, decriminalization of drugs, end to foreign entanglements. It's an easy, comfortable position for a white guy from the suburbs getting a good college education to take.

Since 2000, I have changed some opinions. I've kept some the same. The biggest changes come from personal interactions. Notably, I've seen people go bankrupt because they got cancer. I've had friends go to Iraq and Afghanistan and come back broken physically and mentally and get shitty help from the country that sent them there. I've actually talked with immigrants (ILLEGALS!!!!!) who are just here so their kids will have a better life than the shitty one they had when they were young. I've had LGBT friends move from a red state to a blue state because they're worried they'll lose spousal rights. And on a petty personal level, I've blown out like 4 tires because of potholes because our roads are so shittty.

So, while I do generally still favor a smaller government, I do think if we're paying into this place, we should focus on things in a more utilitarian manner. We shouldn't spend as much on military as the next 13 highest nations combined. We especially shouldn't do so when we services we get from the country (education, healthcare, infrastructure, public safety) don't keep pace with other first world countries. I think it's possible to both cut taxes and better serve the citizens. I'm happy to discuss any of those points further, should you like. And make no mistake, I'm still a free market capitalist at heart. That doesn't mean we eschew all social programs. I bought the "but those are socialism" lines when I was younger. Not anymore. We've got socialist programs all over our government that are perfectly fine with.

I also no longer identify with Libertarians because the Tea Party movement flooded the party with people who were unabashedly conservatives who just didn't like the Republican label. The socially liberal end of the party was essentially cut out and replaced with people with fundamentally silly ideas of what a government is and isn't, arguing all the way down to the now infamous consent age and fire department discussions.

At that point I was left with the neoliberal D party (socially liberal, fiscally too liberal for my tastes), the R party (socially conservative with a Theocratic bent, pretends to be fiscally conservative but actually outspends the Ds and now dangerously populist with a smattering of fascism), and a Tea Party L party. So, WTF do I do as a voter? For me, if they're all going to overspend, I'd rather they overspend on things I think are worthwhile. I'd rather my government not harass people just trying to live their lives in peace.

I know you have the ability to not just speak in catchphrases. we've actually had conversations before. so, if you'd like to respond with something that's actually thought out, that would be cool. if not, well, that's your prerogative.