>>22
You take issue with the economic aspect of Libertarianism. True, a powerful corporation can gain undue influence. But you seem to think that powerful corporations are the only elements in a capitalist society.
You can argue capitalism vs. communism 'til the cows come home, but Libertarianism addresses more than just that. Libertarianism, at least the style Ron Paul reflects, has capitalism as a *side effect* of the overall relationship a government should have with the people. The people can do what they want as long as it does not interfere with another's right.
Your suspicions against the rich as being overly powerful is both understandable and excessive. Can the state not do the same thing to the people? Can the state not say what is good or bad for the people's wellbeing? You're thinking in absolutes here. Of course complete anarchy is just as bad as the other side of the spectrum but you hack at Libertarianism as if it was an anarchist philosophy bent on "maximizing profit" (or was that not you that said lern2maximization of profit"?).
Stripped down, Libertarianism is nothing more than blending a Democrat's social views with a Republican's economic views into one on the basis of simple individual freedoms.
Oddly enough, you seem to have ignored completely the social aspect of libertarianism...
>>23
My English skills are lacking? That's a first. I may not always place apostrophes in every single contraction, but i don't think i misspelled anything. Also, i get lazy. I don't feel like capitalizing "I's" unless it begins a sentence. I certainly don't think my spelling affected my eloquence. Your derisive tone, however, seems to have affected yours...