That first remark is exactly what I'm talking about here. You're lumping all progressives in with people "willing to demonize others without repercussion". That's not what it means to be a progressive, that's just the kind of progressive you see on the news and in comments sections. You won't be able to look up a description of progressive values and find "demonizing others" as one of the core tenants. Just like there are radical feminists and moderate feminists, there are differing approaches and views amongst progressives. Do you think all Libertarians think and act exactly like you do?

Regarding friends, I actually have a pretty good range of political ideologies in my circles of friends, I just have more progressive friends than anything. Gravitating to similar mentalities I guess, but I don't inherently dislike anyone based on their ideologies. Can't even say Nazis are an exception as an old friend of mine was a neo-nazi, though in that particular case I was ready to turn on the guy if he started openly spouting his hatred. He was typically pretty mild mannered though.

So I should say that I feel that I lean towards freedom. I'm not on the absolute side of freedom, such is anarchy, but neither am I a fan of dictatorships.

When I say "infringing on the freedoms of others" I'm really talking about individuals. I agree with laws being put in place by a democratically elected government that represents the majority (whether our governments do is an entirely other debate). The way I see it there are enough corporations driven by greed that without regulation we would be more oppressed by their unchecked tyranny. I usually use Walmart as an example, as it is both hard to get rid of and has some pretty questionable business practices.

My philosophy on wealth distribution is distinctly progressive. I believe that the richest people got there because of the contributions of the lower classes, so they should be expected to contribute a sizable chunk to ensure the health of those lower classes that support them. Basically I don't think anyone can "earn" a million dollars a year because I don't feel there is anyone who has contributed 20X as much as someone working full time and earning 50k a year. I would actually prefer a society that pays everyone a bit more equally and then do away with wealth redistribution laws, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

So yes, I believe universal healthcare is the best option, and being from Canada I feel it works much better than your system down in the states. Generally anything that is necessary for day to day needs I feel should not be under a for-profit model. Particularly insurance, which is an industry with little room for innovation, I feel should be in the public sector. I get my car insurance from a provincial system as well, and it's far FAR better than when I lived in a province that only had private options. So I believe any wealthy country should have universal health care as I do believe there is no one that doesn't need healthcare available to them. From my point of view it's the freedom of one specific choice vs the freedom of life and physical well being, the latter being far more important.

Gun control I'm a bit wishy washy on. I'm not a strong advocate of gun control, but I do believe people should have to register their guns. You can't stop criminals either way, but no every murder is committed by a criminal. Some are in the heat of the moment, and gun registration may be the very thing that convinces someone that the risk is too great. I also don't think this is a big ask, but you and I probably have fundamentally different views on government.

I would also prefer restrictions on how many guns someone owns, but I wouldn't lobby for it. I support hunters and feel gun ranges should be able to stock a wide array of weapons for rent, but I don't agree with people having personal arsenals.

Roughshod on other issues:

Marriage between homosexuals should be legally recognized and government employees should not be able to let their personal beliefs get in the way of their jobs. If it's a private business discriminating the law shouldn't factor into it. I support them being called out and letting individuals decide if they want to support the business or not.

All drugs should be legal for recreational use, but regulated primarily to ensure purity and age restrictions. Where I'd draw the line is particularly deadly drugs, like carfentanil, which are deadly enough to make the seller liable. Probably some debate to be had on where to draw the line, but the line as it is now is preposterous.

Nazis should be allowed to protest. Counter-protesters should be able to join. Violence should be prosecuted on both sides without bias.

On that note, Nazis should be allowed to hold open forums at colleges and universities. I don't agree with them having a private forum where they can go unchallenged, but let them speak their mind.

Using Nazis as an extreme example of course. Inciting violence should be illegal, but if they're just sharing their views I think it's important that people realize these people do actually exist, if nothing else.

So ya, I feel my views are a bit more nuanced than the progressives you see on TV. Yeah, you probably still vehemently disagree with a lot of what I believe, but I'm willing to have the debate. I'm not likely to change my mind, as I've had these debates plenty of times before and have yet to be presented with compelling enough evidence to change my views. I've come to understand this as due to fundamentally different worldviews, and I think that's fine. I'm not going to say I respect all viewpoints, but it's usually because someone came to the conclusion over some shallow reasoning, like "god hates fags". I rarely find that problem with Libertarians.