Nader wants the most Progressive on the left, who barely tolerate Democrats, to join Libertarians?

[Ratty]

53. What Mr Gently doesn't address

Of course he's technically right: an idea, taken by itself, is good or bad regardless of who espouses it. But there is a danger of the strings that are almost always attached. Against federal drug laws, fine. The Libertarian attaches the whole "state's rights" string to that which opens a whole nother can of worms. Against foreign wars stems from isolationism. Reducing the national debt stems from reducing the federal government. You support a Libertarian who holds these views, you invariably support those pesky strings they always attach.

"No one is wrong about one thing because they're wrong about something else." I would disagree with this statement. If you think we should work to reduce the national debt by eliminating the Depts. of Energy and Education then, yes, your idea is wrong. If you think federal drug laws should be eliminated because states should have the right to decide that, and civil rights laws, and anti-miscegenation laws and institute forced christian prayer in their public schools, then yes, your idea is wrong.

But my biggest gripe with the argument you reposted is the same one I have whenever someone posts those "broken clock" arguments: Why have anything at all to do with a reprehensible and immoral philosophy when there are already so many progressive politicians you could be supporting? Really, Libertarians are the only ones who support a sane drug policy? Nobody else works to end unnecessary war? There aren't any democrats who support reducing the national debt?