Well i am a libertarian but i dont know much about my own belief system Libertarians beleive like a conservative when it comes to the economy. Less government = more companies profits. Government can never hold a company because it leads to problems. just like we saw with fannie and freddie although the government didn't hold that company it was known that they would be bailed out if something went wrong. This allowed them to do all kinds of risky loans which basically caused our credit crunch. I believe that this example and other examples like this improve my point. And government is never efficient so it should be kept to a minimum. The government has ever increasing budgets and no reason to spend it efficiently. Government tends to waste a lot of money in their public works projects.

In social issues people should have more freedom again. This means i do support abortion, gay marriage, and basically anytime government tries to interfere in my life. It really is not the government's job to tell us what is moral and what is not. Their job is to protect our liberties. I will make my own judgements on what is moral. Ofcourse i cannot go rob the grocery store because i think it is "moral" because i am hurting another individual who owns the grocery store. This is when government must act in the form of police officers and such.

To a reasonable extent.

I don't condone the use of Wikipedia as a sole reference, but its article on libertarianism is fairly good. 

What precisely consitutes the libertarian set of principles is a contentious issue, but essentially, a libertarian prioritises personal freedom above all else.  Libertarian is the antonym of authoritarian, after all!  But libertarianism covers a broad spectrum, from left to right of the political system. 

Please note also, that the term "liberal" in bygone days was used to mean something like libertarianism, but particularly in the recent past, the definition of liberal has changed to mean different things to different people, with the Europeans sticking more closely to the original definition than say the Americans.

Libertarians are (in the US anyways) near anarchists. They oppose all government programs except for a small military. This means no CIA no FBI and very very very relaxed laws that don't limit people (like legalizing pot) etc . . .

> A10 wrote:

> Libertarians are (in the US anyways) near anarchists. They oppose all government programs except for a small military. This means no CIA no FBI and very very very relaxed laws that don't limit people (like legalizing pot) etc . . .

well, we dont support babysitter laws. where the government acts like babysitters such as telling us we have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or telling us what drugs we can and cannot use or telling us that we have to wear a seat belt.

actually pot has more tar in it than tobacco but it is only mentaly addictive(very weakly) and i've never heard of a person OD-ing on pot but I have heard of people drinking themselves to death or mistaking ethanol for methanol and I've heard of a person dieing of nicotine poisoning. I also think swedish snus should be legalized everywhere because it could substitute cigarettes as the main tobacco product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

As I consider myself a Libertarian, I give my view.

I feel governments should exist only to protect individuals from other individuals and groups, and groups from other individuals or groups.

They should NOT meddle in protecting people from themselves. They should NOT enforce morality at any time it does not involve the protection function mentioned above.

An example is the seatbelt/helmet laws. They are primarily an attempt by busybodies to force people to protect themselves. The argument for those laws generally is: All those people who choose to go unprotected raise the costs of insurance and medical treatment for the rest of us. (sounds like protecting one group from another, sorta) But that is defeated by the idea we could just add a few more questions to their applications. (we DO have smoker and non-smoker rates, why not seatbelt/helmet user rates and non-user rates?) The free market system could take care of it without legislation. The MOST the government should do here is educate people on their options, and the various results of em.

Next, the laws against theft and robbery are good and a useful function of governments. They protect individuals from others. (actually, they dont protect. They offer some deterrent , true, but mainly offer redress after the fact)

The various laws against sodomy, incest, prostitution, etc. ANY act involving two or more CONSENTING adults should be beyond the reach of any government. However, any such act involving force or coersion is to be addressed by governments.

And so on.

That's a strict defintion of libertarianism, hummy.  I too, define as a libertarianist, but do not take it to that level.  I mean, I largely agree, but I think we can all see the benefits of laws against incest and regulating the use of seatbelts and crash helmets.   

On the topics of prostitution and cannabis, I side with the Dutchies.  On the use of hard drugs - cocaine, heroin etc... - my views are less well formed as I do not know enough of the medical science to make a fully informed opinion.   But my overall view of these drugs is largely negative.

But, on the topics of national health care, education and financial regulation, I position myself to the left, rather than to the right.  In a way, my views on those topics may fall under egalitariansim.

"I mean, I largely agree, but I think we can all see the benefits of laws against incest and regulating the use of seatbelts and crash helmets.  "

First, I address the bit on seatbelts and helmets, and other safety devices. Not all of us see those benefits. If the government wishes to provide info on the benefits (and detriments) of safety items usage, I say go for it. Then people can make an informed choice. If the government wishes to FORCE the usage of the items on people, the government is wrong. People making an informed CHOICE, is the way to go. Just have insurance companies use ck boxes, and adjust rates accordingly: smoke, dont smoke, use seatbelt, dont use seatbelt. Solves the whole problem, without gov intervention and laws. (But, I say this where the chooser is an adult, and mentally competent.)

Laws for children and the mentally incompetent, those who cannot really make an informed decision, are ok.

as for laws against incent; i would say that even a strict libertarian could be for government outlawing incest. because its protection of the possible life that could come from such an act, which chances are would be pretty [The fmods owned me before I even knew it!] up.

Sorry. I have touched on some touchy topics. I apologize for that.

I dont engage in incest, nor do I promote it. I do see that it should be allowed between CONSENTING adults. An, not outlawed outa hand.

> avogadro wrote:

> as for laws against incent; i would say that even a strict libertarian could be for government outlawing incest. because its protection of the possible life that could come from such an act, which chances are would be pretty [The fmods owned me before I even knew it!] up.

Eh, I addressed that