What would a Libertarian-Democrat platform look like?

I suppose I run into problems with unprofessional obnoxious arrogant ideological loud faculty leaders on campus not because I am from the conservative right, but because I am a libertarian-Democrat.  The flavor of libertarianism that runs counter to many of the issues that are near and dear to the social-Democrats and self-professed Socialists ....

What might be in brief the guiding principles of a libertarian-Democrat approach to social organization and governance?  Here is Terry Michael:

The government should assure liberty by staying as far away as possible from our bank accounts, our bedrooms, and our bodies. Spread pluralistic democracy and free markets by example, understanding that neither can be planted by force on political real estate lacking indigenous cultivators for their growth. Restore the moral authority of mid-20th century civil rights, fashioning public policy around individuals, not tribal identity groups.

More here on Michael's manifesto

My favorite libertarian-Democrat public intellectual? Camille Paglia, of course ... too bad for people like me that she has taken time off from public discourses ...

Middle East immigrants, milk, and European growth

Spiegel's report, from where I got this map as well (ht), notes:

New excavations in Turkey, as well as genetic analyses of domestic animals and Stone Age skeletons, paint a completely different picture:

• At around 7000 BC, a mass migration of farmers began from the Middle East to Europe.
• These ancient farmers brought along domesticated cattle and pigs.
• There was no interbreeding between the intruders and the original population.

Mutated for Milk
The new settlers also had something of a miracle food at their disposal. They produced fresh milk, which, as a result of a genetic mutation, they were soon able to drink in large quantities. The result was that the population of farmers grew and grew.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

How did the universe come about?  Why is there something instead of nothing?  While offering ten testable explanations, Michael Shermer articulates the argument that I have offered in my own less sophisticated ways for a number of years:

in answer to the question Why is there something instead of nothing?, it is okay to say “I don’t know” and keep searching. There is no need to turn to supernatural answers just to fulfill an emotional need for certainty and comfort. Science’s uncertainty is its greatest strength. We should embrace it.

I have always felt people have been drawn to religions because of the sense of security those narratives offer.  Which is also why most of the people who feel "secure" within their religious explanations of how all these came about and where we will end either make fun at the obvious holes in other religious narratives, or even feel threatened by them.

My only problem with some of the science-based explainers is that their preference to mask this uncertainty of science and, instead, project that as the absolute truth.  Now, I understand that a great majority of the non-science population might not appreciate the nuance when we talk about science's uncertainty.  But, then neither am I happy with beating the life out of them by telling them that the scientific knowledge we have is definitive.

A few years ago, my parents were describing to me how my dead grandmother spoke through my cousin.  In a respectful tone I told them that this was not possible, and perhaps it was nothing but some psychological aspect of my cousin's that needed to be understood.  My mother asked me a few questions and at the end of it all I told her something like this: a long time ago, the Hindu religious narrative explained the eclipse as a war between the good and evil forces.  Scientific thinking--even in the old India--explained that there were no gods and demons involved here, and that one could even predict when eclipses would occur.  Slowly, in many aspects of life, we have been able to drive out the old incorrect explanations, and offer rational ones that withstand scrutiny.  We have a long way to go, but it does not mean that we will have to fill the gaps with "faith."

Come to think of it, that might have been the last time we discussed our respective approaches to understanding this universe.