User blog comment:Super Warmonkey/Libertarian Party/@comment-2153819-20120813022150/@comment-2153819-20120813051447

Ohh OK. That makes more sense now. And I suppose I agree...but now I present to you two other arguments:

1) A man or woman has a rather large hooked nose that - aside from being quite noticeable - can hint of other things like her Jewish or Greek ancestry. Suppose they have a hard time getting a job because of this, and become poor as a result. You could use other physical features too, like epicanthic folds or dark skin colour.

2) A young man or woman wears a certain style of clothes that represent what they feel is their identity and that consequently is very important to them. Suppose they have a hard time getting a job because of this. Should they need to sacrifice their identity in orger to make a living in that community? The same could be said about people from other cultures who may dress and act in ways that could prevent them from getting a job. Likewise, if someone was a nudist, they would need to sacrifice a very core view in order to "fit in" and get a job. Lots of nudists end up doing this anyway. And I know a few gay people who would like to display affection publicly.

These may be rather extreme examples but they are about the same thing. Conservatism allows discrimination without placing any responsibility on those who discriminate. If I want a free economy and the ability to be personally responsible for my own livelihood, then I should also want to promote and encourage the continuation of a free economy. But people are not going to want a free economy - or at least a conservative one - if they don't feel they have a chance in it. That is probably the biggest reason why they would vote Liberal. If the Libertarian Party values a free economy just as much as the Republican Party does, I don't see how they can have any more luck in this field than the Republicans do unless their government plans to help disadvantaged people get jobs.

But I did like your obesity analogy. It works, because people are perfectly capable of controlling how much they eat all by themselves. So I can see why the government shouldn't have to support them.