Even if you had a super intelligent species that can make Dyson spheres and travel at the speed of light the observable universe is beyond vast. I don't know much about cosmology or our ability to detect light but given humans have only been looking into the sky for a couple centuries, not being able to see a thimble in the ocean seems like a non issue. I think if you scale the observable universe down to the size of earth the speed of light becomes 0.05 mph.

There is no need for personal attacks. If you are implying I subscribe to conspiracy theories then you are not correct.

Sure, about the candidates and their stances. All the candidates manipulate the polls to make it look like their ahead and they are just used to pressure people to vote for one of the major parties. Vote for who you want in office. And if you are inclined then try to sway others. But this bandwagon appeal isn't the way.

Whatever happens will happen. We don't have control over the outcome only our efforts. Do what you can now to fight for what you believe. Stressing over polls doesn't help.

The party leaders incited Trump as a means to get media attention for their convention. It was not a popular choice and a lot of the delegates and party members were asking the invitation be revoked because it can send confusing signals to the rest of the world that aren't familiar with the party. Since the leaders refused to revoke the invitation the members took it upon themselves to make it clear they don't support Trump hence all the booing/heckling. There were also apparently a lot of rubber chickens that were confiscated by secret service that were going to be used as noise makers.

For a bit of context. Inviting Trump was decided on by the party leaders and was not a popular choice with most of the delegates who were worried it would send a confusing signals to people not familiar with the party. Trump was also able to sneak a lot of his MAGA supporters into the convention for the speech. They tried to sit up front to make it look like Trump was popular there but they were forced to sit in the back. So any claims about cheering should be take with some salt.

Libertarians are just like other political parties. There are different groups that subscribe the the term libertarian each with slightly different beliefs. Whatever extremists people are out there in the Internet do not represent the whole. I really suggest watching some of the 2024 libertarian debates. They are educated smart people who are informed about the complex issues like those you mentioned. This whole thread has been really eye opening for me. I had no idea people had these conceptions about libertarians. I am guessing there are a bunch of far right groups that like to identify as anarchists and throw around the term libertarian while they do. But if you listen to the rhetoric of the political party and the representatives you will see that those ideas are not held by the party as a whole.

To answer your question, libertarians are, in general, pro personal liberties and pro economic liberties. They believe the individual should get to choose. A common line they use is government should not exert force one way or the other. This means they tend to agree with Democrats on issues like race, drugs, LGBTQ etc. The people who actually get a stage in the political party are absolutely against racism, sexism etc. There was a debate recently where the candidates (about 7 primary) were Asked their stance on abortion. Most of them said they were personally pro life BUT they would still veto any bill or cut funding to any program that forced that perspective on others. Any person who goes around saying they think this and they want the government to force and regulate that disagrees fundamentally with the libertarian perspective. I said most, because one of the candidates was unapologetically pro choice. Please don't think that whatever alt right edge lords are out there actually have any idea what libertarianism is.

I think part of the problem is the blurred lines between routine healthcare and emergencies. You are right, if you are having a heart attack insurance should step in to help you front the unexpected large cost. But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.

I like your point about insurance getting to decide but I think it's important to note you can still get treated even if insurance doesn't pay. Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay. You make some good points though.

There is no need to be rude. OP asked for libertarian views.

There is no need to be condescending or rude. I'm trying to share my ideas and have a healthy discussion so maybe we can learn from each other.

It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it's not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?

I think people have a lot of good responses especially about outrage fatigue. Also as many pointed out, people do care, hence the protests especially about Gaza. But even if everybody agrees that the atrocities are terrible people disagree on the solution. Historically the United States has been very involved in foreign affairs and trying to be some sort of glorified superman that went around beating up corrupt governments and improving lives in oppressed countries but it went terribly. It turned out that the US occupying these nations and fighting them just upset the locals even more and led to extremists and even more bloody fighting. Now days I think a lot of people want to help but prefer the government stay out of it. I think what is happening in Ukraine and Gaza is terrible but I don't want the US involved. Us sending soldiers and weapons doesn't help. Instead, I give to charity, and do the little bit I can to help struggling people.