For anyone who trully wants to understand the appeal of Libertarianism that drives many of the Tea Partiers, you should read what Ron Paul has to say http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml. Ron Paul, while technically a Republican, freely admits he is trully a Libertarian politically, so what does that mean? Put simply, true Libertarians believe the Federal Government is far too large and should be a much smaller and weaker entity than it currently is today. They as a whole normally back the dissolving of the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve for being examples of too much government. True Libertarians also believe the Government shouldn't legislate morality and as such don't support the idea of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. This isn't because they support gay marriage, they just don't see how it's any of the federal government's business. That's actually the best way to describe Libertarians, they live the philosophy of "None of Your Business" towards the government and for many in America that kind of philosophy makes sense and I would have to agree...but not entirely.
Dr. Paul is a believer it a "True Free-Market" in which there are few government regulations and the economy and businesses are allowed run their own course whether it be successful or disasterous. Such a system sounds very good on paper but I find many faults with it. For example, there is nothing in Dr. Paul's Free Market that keeps Monopolies from forming and controlling the economy but yet he rails against Monopolies at the same time....Dr. Paul also denounces Keynesian economics, which is the system most if not all Western nations economies have used since the early 20th century. What is Keynesianism? Basically its an economic policy advocating a "Mixed" economy, in which the economy is in private hands and government influence plays a major factor in the economy as a whole. Is Keynesianism a perfect economic policy? Of course not, and there is no such perfect economic system. A True Free-Market system as advocated by Ron Paul is also far from perfect because with no government oversight we would have to rely on American corporations and businessmen to be honest and not exploit both the economy and the people...And who honestly believes that? Even with regulations and government oversight American businesses are still filled with corruption and purposely exploit the system to their own benefit no matter what the cost to average Americans. Do you think they would behave any better without supervision? A "True" Free-Market, while being more free from government interference is also liable to become corrupt and overbearing in its own right. So which is better? That is a question I cannot answer simply because I am not an economist, but to completely denounce Keynesianiam is to ignore one the major factors that shaped America's Post-War economic boom in the 20th century. And for this, I find Ron Paul's logic towards it flawed..