In many of the news stories I have seen/read/heard recently, I note that many people use words that they think they know what they mean, and they think that we also know what they mean.

For starters--and the list is waaaay too long for this post--"libertarian" and "conservative." In general, it seems like people in the US who are referred to as "conservatives" believe in unlimited, unfettered rights for corporations, and none for individuals who only want to control their own bodies--sex, drugs, and rock & roll, of course. In other words, they talk libertarian, but they cherry pick which part of the program they will support.

The principles (principals?) of the Libertarian Party as listed on their website suggest that they want as little regulation as possible, except to protect a person from harm or harm to their property. Now, that can be very loosely interpreted. I suspect, though, that most people would not want to live in the unavoidably chaotic world of pure libertarianism. That is why Rand Paul is such a blessing to the Dems.

The "Tea Party" claims some of the libertarian mantle, but only in very vague rhetoric. To save my life, I really couldn't say with any certainty how a TPP member would handle "X" issue in REAL LIFE. And somehow, even though they are both using most of the same language, there seems to be a difference?? between the TPP and mainstream conservative/Repubs.

Are there any definitions with substance out there? Other than enjoying seeing the "loyal opposition" feasting on itself, I am utterly confused as to who stands for what and why, and how their beliefs would guide their legislative or social actions.`
Saul