Define “don’t affect them personally”. 
Then put every thread in the Politics forum to the test.
The only politics that doesn’t try to affect everybody personally is Libertarian politics.
It’s the one thing they’re good at.
Those leaves and their 2nd amendment…
At least they weren’t stabbed, London style.
Aren’t acid attacks the new fotm in the UK?
In other words…
…it’s mostly not about virtue signaling.
You’re wrong about libertarians, btw. They do affect other people – to the extent that they manage to exert legislative/regulatory influence, that is.
Example: let’s say “legalize drunk driving” is a libertarian position. (I don’t know how many libbers actually want that, but let’s just suppose they do.) According to your position – that libbers don’t affect other people – the streets would be just as safe after legalization as they are now. 
You do know why they signal virtues in the first place, right?
And do you understand the difference between the hypothetical and the actual?
The Libertarians don’t make a damn bit of difference. Except perhaps hypothetically, and even that’s iffy.
When drunk driving is outlawed, only outlaws will drive drunk.
Outright libertarians who manage to get elected are quite rare – like outright communists (in most countries) or even outright greens (in most countries). That doesn’t mean they or their ideologies have zero influence.
Um, hello Mr. Van Winkle. 
Drunk driving is banned in most places. Some people do it anyway, but those who get caught usually get penalized. Take away the penalties, and you can expect more people to do it. Not rocket science.
Ah, now we’re talking the actual. The bottom line: THEY DO IT ANYWAY. Because they’re assholes, and “penalizing” an asshole doesn’t make him stop being an asshole. A weak deterrent is no deterrent at all.
Take away the license and… they just drive without licenses. That’s how these things work. THEY DON’T CARE.
Perfect: REPEAL ALL LAWS! THEY DON’T WORK ANYWAY! 
Sounds more anarchist than libertarian. 
The point is, either you enforce a law in a meaningful manner, or don’t have that law. Unenforced laws penalize only the law abiding. What sort of person would want to do that? (What do the Dems have against legal immigrants, for example, that they make it easier for MS-13 to enter the country than for a law abiding alien?)
If enforcing a law leads to bad consequences, that means it’s a bad law and the solution is to repeal it. But if they won’t repeal it, then enforce it.
It’s called rule of law. It’s also called not letting them have it both ways. Whenever you let them have it both ways, you get stuck with the double bind.
legal migrants tend to look for work and try to avoid the welfare plantation. That’s haram, I’m surprised you even have to ask.
Unless it was a rhetorical question, of course.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/6841801/facebook-block-womens-rights-group-transphobia/
Truly we are in late feminism.
See, this is the problem with using class warfare to gain power. When you finally succeed in destroying all others, you have to scrounge for some new conflict to keep going. Ultimately, you turn to cannibalism.
When the left wins, everyone loses.
So, repeal all immigration laws and trust the Great Great Wall to sort everything out (since GW1 worked so well for China)? Even most Covfefists aren’t that hardcore.
“Tough” law, spineless enforcement:
The death of faux outrage…
Courageously taking a stand against something or other:
This poor kid.
I once knew someone who transgendered after starting a family. They freaked.
Guy/gal did not think ahead.