A good friend of mine told me this week that, in his political science class, his professor referred to Libertarians as “disgruntled Republicans who were dropped on their heads as children.” Perhaps the first part of that statement is true, but I can’t seem to find the scars on my head that would result from my mother dropping me as an infant and smashing my fragile, developing cranium.

There is a popular notion of dismissing Libertarians and other third parties as illegitimate and outlandish points of view. They are often branded as crazies when some third party views are actually in line with the Republican and/or Democratic Parties themselves. In reality, this bias results from the fact that a typical Republican or Democrat can’t get past their own personal grudges that shape their politics to see the consistency of a Libertarian perspective.

Hear this argument out. Whether you know anything about Libertarianism or not, it’s a perspective to consider.

Both Republicans and Democrats occupy Capitol Hill. We vote for one party or the other simply because they are the best available and most likely to have a chance at winning whatever seat they’re running for.

Oftentimes, citizens will feel as if they don’t want to align themselves totally with one party or the other for the fact that they don’t necessarily agree with everything that party has to offer. This is for two reasons: One, because in the case of these two power parties, their policies are based off doing the opposite of the other party. Two, they are inconsistent and hypocritical ways of aligning a viewpoint.

Republicans say they value small government (while they spent billions under Bush). Financially, they market the power of the individual, and their policies reflect a belief that citizens can and should be able to support themselves financially without government intervention. Don’t catch the Republican freedom bug, though. They’ll let you keep your money, but they’ll attempt to control your personal life by supporting laws that prohibit who you marry, what you do with a baby, what you smoke and what flag you burn in the name of family values.

But then there are the Democrats who will let us live as we want to. Flutter away, little butterfly. Smoke your marijuana (depending on the Democrat) and abort your children! Burn your flags and marry the gays! With the Democrats, we can do what we want so long as we’re not hurting anybody else’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness unless you’re a citizen who has an income or busted your tail to build wealth. This party of wealth envy might let citizens live a free lifestyle, but they’ll make sure they steal half of your hard-earned income and decide who’s allowed to earn what based on what they perceive as “fair.”

There are inconsistencies galore in the power parties. While both perspectives have some good to offer, consider an attractive hybrid for those who just want to be left alone. Replace “fiscal conservative, social liberal” as their political description with Libertarian.

Libertarian philosophy generally embraces keeping more of what you earn and being left alone in terms of social issues. Those who earn deserve to keep, and those who are offended by someone’s actions because they aren’t in line with their family values can live with the fact that people are different.

It’s a party that advocates freedom all around, not in one aspect of citizens’ lives or another. What is so twisted and scary about that? Letting people keep more of what they earn and live a certain lifestyle as long as it doesn’t harm other citizens. Consistency — something the big two have long lacked.

The irony behind the Libertarians and other third parties is that there are even those within the party who don’t totally align with it. But given the options for those who share a fiscal conservative and social liberal perspective, Libertarianism fits the bill much better than the two power parties.

Whether you agree with Libertarian ideology or see it as crazy talk, it must be conceded that at least it’s consistent across the boards. It takes a perspective on life and implements it through all policies, not just the policies that target rich people out of envy or hippie behavior because it is offensive. Relative to the other two, it makes the most sense.

So much sense that my head is spinning. After all, it was a traumatic fall from my mother’s arms.

— Oliver Casey is a junior in enterprise management. He can be reached at [email protected].