The concept’s founding father, Murry Rothbard, had at one time tried to associate himself with everyone from the extreme anti-war left, to the Ayn Rand wing of the liberaterian party (see above “tin-foil hat” comparison), to the dang anarchists themselves.

He was pretty much shunned by all of them. LOL.

And dude… really… being shunned by the Ayn Rand Nutjobs is the functional equivilent of being thrown out of a pig pen for having hygene problems.

Like most libertarians who are obsessed with trying to pervert Ayn Rand’s doctrine of the individual into something that means nobody should have to abide by any moral constraints ever - he really ends up looking exceeding bizarre and foolish.

The ugly truth is that the extreme form of libertarianism that some folks try to attach themselves too is just not taken seriously by anyone who has had even the most rudimentary education in the political sciences. Period.

Just… read his piece for proof.

Now… I’d like to make clear that there are folks that I know that consider themselves “libertarians” who aren’t this “type” of libertarian, and I do draw a distinction there.

My younger brother is by all accounts an intelligent and well educated gentleman. I know him to be wise and coherent. He considers himself a “libertarian” I believe because he feels disenfranchised by the right, and a little reviled by the left. He chose libertarian because it was “door number 3″ as opposed to feeling trapped by the confines of a stullifying two-party system.

I’d be surprised to find out that he had researched true, grass-roots libertarianism and found himself okay with tribalism and well… fuedalism, which is the only path that raw libertarian philosophy can logically lead to.

I’d be more suprised to find that he had actually read and studied the works of Ayn Rand as I have, and came away with what I call the “Dirty Dancing” philosophy of “Some people matter, and some don’t” that many of the misguided do.

Like Mr. Dada.

But I can’t help but shake the feeling that we’re not getting the entire story on it. Perhaps corn for fuel won’t need as many pesticides, because it’s not for human consumption. Perhaps refining technology will improve the process to the point where it’s doesn’t require as much energy to harvest.

I’m suspicious because many of the studies that support that position are funded by the people with the most to lose if E85 is adopted. That’s always a Big Red Flag with me.

Dude! If we could distill seawater into a viable fuel… I’d be the FIRST in line.

You make great points as usual.

Corn is the SUV of crops. Few other kinds of farms require the amount of energy per acre to grow and harvest… Not to mention the elevated amount of pesticides that growing corn puts into ground water. (Corn requires a LOT of pesticide.)

I think the E85 is more a political solution than a long-term supply/cost solution.

But I agree that it’s a step in the right direction. I hate to poo-poo postitive change. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet, I’d rather be distilling sea water into my gas tank. Now THAT is a definitive energy solution.

Still… I’ll take the solutions available to me… Even if it’s moonshine in my gas tank.