There are a few people who advocate generally leaving others alone to do what they want, but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe.
I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.
The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me.
On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat.
Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone.
Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
No matter how you cut it, "taxes fund civilization". All of those things you want the nation to fund collectively (and I agree that many things are vastly more efficient to fund collectively) require taxing and then spending said tax revenues.
I'm not disagreeing or trying to be pedantic. I actually agree that there are adjustments that ought to be made to the overall national budget including less expenditure on military infrastructure and elective military campaigns. But I think the whole "but not tax and spend" thing is a cliche at this point because everyone has different priorities and opinions on what counts as "important" and what constitutes wasteful "tax and spend".
Every non-office-holding Democrat I know would go for it. The problem is that it's political suicide to actually suggest it, because most people don't realize how exorbitant our military spending actually is, so voting for a cut means you go on record as anti-military. That's not an easy rap to beat.
It's one of those downsides to democracy. No one has the power to just do it.
I think a Hager vs Rand Paul election would be far better than a Hillary v Jeb race that folks seem to be predicting.
> I think this is (slowly) starting to change.
Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values.
However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.
A lot of these laws, no doubt, if executed more thoughtfully, would bring us far more reasonable laws.
Ultimately I think it boils down to being able to (a) convince citizens they need to make thoughtful consideration when voting for their representatives, and (b) convince qualified people that they should run for office.
Yeah contradicting 100 years of development of economic theory, i.e. proposing to return to the gold standard, will have that effect.