Funny, I think that I’m the world’s most confused (or inconsistent) Libertarian. Slate has a completely non-serious piece on where Conservatives can flee if Obama locks in the presidency. The funny thing is that some of the suggestions, Hong Kong and Switzerland, are places where I’ve jokingly threatened to move to if Palin ever becomes president. It’s more of matter of me believing that President Palin would further run this country and its economy into the ground, so I’d rather find shelter on a continent my family left over a hundred years ago.
This really doesn’t jive with what I consider my personal political beliefs. I see myself as a social libertarian. I heart privacy. I heart free speech. I am one of the few San Franciscans who believes in both gay marriage as a human right and in the 2nd Amendment (narrowly interpreted, though, against semis and other “big” guns).
At the same time, I’m not a true economic libertarian. I don’t believe that the free market is the best solution (or rather, I don’t believe markets are actually free). I do agree with the concept of taxes, when spent for the greater good. I believe in a social safety net.
So, I’m confused as to why when presented with a potential president who would further reduce social freedoms, my natural instinct would be to leave for a place like HK, where the free market reigns supreme, but where there are less civil liberties than in the U.S. Deep down, do economics speak to me more?
 I always hold Switzerland out there as the all end financial goal; to have sufficient money to retire in anonymity in Montreaux, now that would be the life. Perhaps, Switzerland is the true libertarian’s paradise because wealth combined with anonymity is true freedom.