The 2012 SodaHead Libertarian Survey!

At the very most, I would seek a minarchist government incapable of arbitrary legislation and restrained by extremely paranoid checks and balances with teeth. Given our experience with the Constitution, I think it should be clear that anyone seeking to write another one must craft the language halfway from the point of view of a diabolical statist attacker seeking to subvert it, so any possible weaknesses are anticipated and accounted for.

That said, I see voluntaryism as a moral/ethical ideal, and I think it's worth experimenting with it when the time is right. I hold hope that done right, it could be a final end to the evils of government...and in this sense, I consider myself a voluntaryist at heart. At the same time, I do not demand it, because I do not demand absolute perfection...especially if the perfect becomes the enemy of the good: I'm also wary of the possibility that minarchists could be right, and voluntaryism could end up leading to another state (a non-minarchist one at that), especially if we were not culturally ready for it (which we currently are not!). Therefore, I would be perfectly happy with minarchy if I thought it would ultimately maximize individual liberty.

I am primarily a principled libertarian (deontological), but there are certain corners of anarcho-capitalism that I fear could become prohibitively dangerous on a utilitarian level. For instance, prisons would still be necessary for uncontrollably violent people (where no form of compensation-based justice would work), but a completely privatized justice system would have to be set up EXTREMELY carefully to ensure the prison owners' profit motive did not incentivize bastardization of the law to imprison more people, whether we're talking private law or a monopolistic NAP. So far, I have not found a completely privatized solution (without any form of monopolistic government or law) which fully alleviates my concerns. In some ways, I would be more comfortable with a non-coercively funded "government" based solely on the NAP and homestead principles, where the monopoly was limited solely to those principles. Such a system does not appear to be as, uh, "anarchic" as private law anarcho-capitalism, but it doesn't go so far as having a state either.

Ultimately, the people are the true limiting factor of any system of governance (with or without an explicit state): The US government is allowed to get away with what it has because the people allow it, and the people allow it because they either do not respect or do not properly understand the Constitution. If the Constitution had much stronger checks and balances - with teeth for zealous enforcement - people in the past may have been able to stop, reverse, and/or punish incremental expansion before it ever took hold and was allowed to accumulate, which would have also halted the gradual perversion of its "interpretation." At the same time, libertarians and allies have had great success utilizing the Constitution as an ideological rallying point, because so many of us have internalized a respect for it (as opposed to unlimited government, that is)...not enough of us to prevent what has happened, but enough that there is still hope. The most dangerous aspect of the state - and the potential saving grace of an anarchic system - is that people are indoctrinated and conditioned into believing the state is "special" and inherently justified in doing things that constituent individuals are not. A minarchist country that became voluntaryist through gradual dismantling of government might have the culture to reject this insidious justification, but there may be a catch as well: In order to maintain that culture of liberty, it may still be necessary to have a single codified document (such as a Constitution) to internalize, pass down, and rally behind. This could serve as a basis for courts, and a basis for which people could judge their legitimacy in perpetuity.

They've lost their way and the original intent of the party. If originated it today they would called the Tea Party.
Founder Dave Nolan was right of the Republican Party..he believed and was right, they had become moderates.
"As a youth he was an avid reader of science fiction, which led him to the writings of libertarian Robert Heinlein, the first major influence on his political thinking. Later, encountering Ayn Rand's writings helped cement his innate libertarianism."
In the early '60's there was virtually no libertarian movement as we know it today. Republican Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, with its emphasis on limited government (aided by the fiery rhetoric of his libertarian speechwriter Karl Hess), was a natural draw for nascent libertarians looking to change the world. Dave was one of many libertarians attracted to that campaign.
He became a founding member of M.I.T. Students for Goldwater. Largely due to his efforts, the chapter rapidly grew to become the largest Youth for Goldwater chapter in New England. In recognition of this achievement Dave was appointed Vice-Chair of Massachusetts Youth for Goldwater.
Dave also became involved with the Liberty Amendment Committee, an organization working to repeal the federal income tax and get the federal government out of all activities not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

The Libertarian movement has been infiltrate by the left to become Liberal lite. Its only purpose now is to siphon off votes from the Republican party so that the DemocRats can win national elections

Take the issue of health care, for example: I'm Team Kucinich (single payer) because as a libertarian I look and see that in half of all 1.4 million personal bankruptcies, the people were forced to file due to medical bills, and approximately 2 million others in their families were affected, including 700,000 children (this was for 2001 – this goes on year after every single year – link: http://www.consumeraffairs.co... ), and, worse than this, tens of millions of our people are without coverage altogether, or, if they did have coverage, could (before ObamaCare at least) be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, which could be defined as just about anything. Such a situation should be unacceptable to libertarians, because liberty starts with the health and well-being of one's body; one's vehicle here on earth.

I don't like ObamaCare's mandate, which is unconstitutional regardless of what the SC has said, or its further wedding of large corporations to government. The *more* free market approach would have been what I'm advocating: A completely private system of health care practitioners (I would have done more even to strengthen that aspect, and to eliminate their red tape and government burden), but within the context of public funding, and to have that funding limited to constitutional taxes (Kucinich's HR 676 plan consisted of a 3.7% payroll tax, and a 5% tax on the employer side. This is not much above what each pay now into Medicare, and it would have replaced – not been in addition to – it, and its full health, dental, eye and mental health coverage would have allowed people the freedom to go to the practice of their choice, with zero co-pays, zero deductibles, no worry ever over how they're going to pay their medical bills, no more being a slave to a job just because they can't port their health insurance... that alone would be a huge boost to free labor markets – if that is in fact what we're interested in.

Lastly, there is no doubt at all that this is within the power of The People to achieve and implement, should they want it, because we believe that people have the God-given right to free association. 'Public' isn't a dirty word – I myself don't even think in terms of 'public' and 'private'... those categories make no sense. In both cases, all we are dealing with are *people*; associations of *people*. My libertarianism requires only that

1) The associations – whether 'public' or 'private' – be as free as they can possibly be, for all, in consideration of their human – not divine – organization (that they be truly *self*-organized), and

2) We recognize that centralization is a two-edged sword – as much as centralization allows men to increase their living, their material achievements and comforts and to reduce their toil, does excessive centralization tend to sour and corrupt all that which is good in human self-organization.

My health care example here, hopefully, provides some insight into what I believe a proper balance might be.

I'd be curious to hear evidence that the Constitution was deliberately sabotaged. I understand that Hamilton's "necessary and proper" clause may have been intended in this manner, but a lot of the most abused phrases and clauses would have sounded pretty innocuous at the time, because their meaning was clear.

Benjamin Franklin had some interesting words on the Constitution upon its initial completion:
http://www.usconstitution.net...
He seemed to believe that it was not the best Constitution possible, but the best that could actually be agreed upon by the delegates present. He was also well aware it would end in despotism, but he seemed to fear the consequences of immediate failure more. Even though the states were doing pretty well in "anarchic" years without an effective central government (and he once made a wry comment that the delegates at the convention had to hurry up before the people caught on ;)), I think he feared Britain especially would attempt to take over again, and that the people wouldn't care enough to fight them off again, which would prematurely end such a fledgling experiment in limited representative government.

We only know the consequences of the path that was actually taken for sure, so who knows if he might have been right? I'm sure that if they had the support of enough delegates, they might have been able to write a better Constitution: Eliminating slavery off the bat would likely have prevented the Civil War and Lincoln, which could have given us a lot longer before things totally fell apart. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that writing a Constitution that actually "worked" was beyond them. From their vantage point, they just didn't have enough historical perspective yet to write anything that wouldn't end in despotism...and whether or not he believed anything else was possible, Franklin seemed to know it. Given that, a British takeover and immediate loss of sovereignty might have legitimately seemed like a bigger threat than tyranny centuries down the road.

With the addition of the past two hundred years of hindsight, I think it's now quite possible to write a constitution that would actually work, but our real obstacle would be the same one that forced the Framers to keep slavery in the original Constitution: Even if the initial draft was impervious to internal subversion (by virtue of being written by someone sufficiently paranoid and precise), would the delegates be intelligent or wise enough to ratify it or constructively strengthen it, or would they be foolish enough to demand dilution?