The modern Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 in the house of David Nolan. This was Colorado Springs, Colorado. This is the same general area of the country where the saviors in Stephen King's The Stand and the Wolverines from Red Dawn come from.
There are two basic types of Libertarians. Basically, you have the red meat and the tofu crowds. It just depends on whether you preferred to D and D quest as a warrior or some whiny spirit bitch. The consequentialists are basically your Conan the Barabrian lobertarians. They tend to believe that (left up to everyone's own devices), the best of all possible results will happen. Magically, not only will some wussy wizard in a dress end up on the business end of your spear, but also freedom will lead to curiously wonderful results. Economist Milton Friedman would explain this all in the magic of making a pencil. Milton's fascination with pencils may have been a result of all the freakin' times that he had to hear Pencil followed by "Necked Geek." The theory went something like this. No one knew quite how a pencil was made and sold so cheaply. Rubber came from one part of the world. Steel came from another part of the world. Graphite was mined in another part of the world. The wood all came from a completely different part of the world. A free market without a lot of regulations yielded all the materials in one place to produce a pencil cheaply and effeciently. If a bunch of governments got together and made rules legislating pencil making, you would have neither a cheap nor an effecient product. Consequentialists have the mindset that violence does not solve everything, but no one said it didn't solve anything. The maximization of freedom through merely allowing people to do whatever the hell they want is presumably the surest way to mutual happiness for everyone. Arms in the defense of such freedoms is just what you have to do every now and again, but only in the defense of individual liberty or ...if some one's taking to long with yo ho.
There is a scary rumor out there that given half a chance Ayn Rand might have voted for today's Republicans. For this reason, anyone who quotes Ayn Rand must be met with a frothing at the mouth hatred. That is the reason why the left has memorized Ayn Rand's religious beliefs as opposed to Margaret Sanger's eugenics positions. Deontological libertarians are some times referred to as natural rights libertarians. They believe that the greatest virtues are a minimalization of government as well as the determination of self. In short, if someone tries to regulate something or pass a law on it - then the regulation or law is probably a bad thing. This tends to irk Communists because there might be a profit in all of it. This also tends to irk anarchists because deontological Libertarianism sounds alot like anarchism (but tends to have much better music.) Rand's Atlas Shrugged personified these ideals much to the chagrin of people that would later pass bong as well as end fully forty percent of thier sentences with the word "Man." Rand saw the singularity of rugged indivualism in the pursuit of a higher more successfull self. Even to Rand, this is the exception and not the rule. However, to most Randians, they are naturally the rugged individualist and not a member of the down trodden masses like everyone else. In the yin and yang of deontological versus consequentialist libertarians, Calvin is deontological and Hobbes is consequentialist. It is no mistake that Hobbes is imaginary... and a tiger. Again, if humanity was left to thier own devices completely free, good things would happen. This of course flies in the face of almost every piece of literature or movie about people stranded on islands completely free.
In the song by Five Man Electrical band, the question of property is phrased in such a meaningful and simplistic way that even people who have sex but never shower can debate the point intelligently. The lyrics are as follows "And the Sign said anybody caught tresspassin' would be shot on sight.. So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house 'Hey what gives you the right?' 'to put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in? If God was here he'd tell it to your face.. man your some kind of sinner!"" These lyrics pose a troubling case for your average Libertarian. Lets say that you are a good old fashioned red meat eating gun toting Consequential Libertarian who bought the land and wants to be free from everyone else. Your inclination would be to demonstrate your freedom as well as protect your liberty. IE... You'd own the damn property and shoot the dirty Hippie. In a way though, the dirty Hippie in question is an ideological soulmate in freedom. You have to consider this point as you are burying him to create fertilizer for your wildlife. The wildlife are also yours to kill by the way. As you are sticking a shovel into his tye dyed shirt, you have to consider that said dead dirty hippie was merely exercising his own liberty by tresspassing. As you are shoveling mulch over him and his favorite bong, you have to consider whether or not this dead hippie would have voted with you. Of course, if you are a deontological libertarian, there is the issue that said dead hippie believed in God with interferes with your liberty to consider yourself the epicenter of the universe. Libertarian thus encompass both propertarianism and anti-propertarianism. The alternate side of the coin means that Libertarianism encompasses gun toting maniacs as well as dead hippies.
It is generally agreed that man needs some sort of law as well as structure. The amount of laws and structures are purely up for grabs. This is especially true in a libertarian society. Laws could be as simple as "Bust a deal, face the wheel" or "Two men enter, one man leaves..." Even Robots had to have laws according to Isaac Asimov, and Asimov was a real whiz with Robots. Anarchists such as Jean Jaques-Rousseau, William Goldwin, and V For Vendetta favored as no in no government as possible. The belief is, out side a bit of abberration, man will peacefully co-exist as long as his own needs is the greatest determination. The law of the jungle would lead to man serving others while primarily serving his own interests. This is the belief that inspired Edgar Rice Burroughs to write of the noble savage such as Tarzan. Civilization itself is the enemy of man's natural higher states. This is completely opposite of Howard's Conan where civilization was the only thing that protected to from sword wielding self determinist mad men who were prophesied to have hier own kingdoms. There are libertarians who see the need for government in a very limited role (however the extent of that limited role is hotly debated.) There are also those who would sooner wrap a tie around thier heads while screaming "FOLLOW ME!!! FOLLOW ME TO FREEDOM!!!" Anarcho-Communistic Libertarian Freedom is the primary philosophy of Edgar Friendly in Demolition Man. This is also the primary reason why killers were cryogenically un-frozen to kill him. This is a shame since he made wonderful rat burgers. So on one side of the spectrum, you have the uber-capitalists rubbing muddy shoulders with anarcho-communistic hippies living off the land. Welcome to the dynamic and perplexing inconsitency that is the modern state of libertarianism.
In 1972, the Libertarian Party was formed in house of Vietnam War protestor David Nolan. The Vietnam War was an interesting point for rights based Libertarians. The god father of the movement was Barry Goldwater. Goldwater supported the war in Vietnam, but also many of the tenets of what would become modern Libertarianism. The one thing Libertarians could agree on was the principle of anti-conscription. They saw a draft for military service as an infringement upon liberties even though fighting for freedom from the oppressions of communist state in VIetnam was (to some) a virtue. In short, 'freedom' can take half the night to argue even with a fellow pot smoker in the next stall. Another particular sticking point for many Libertarians is the monetary system. Many lament the loss of money's intrinsic values as well as the end of the gold standard. These are similiar themes that were originally debated as far back as William Jennings Bryant. There are also those that believe The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is nothing more than a frank discussion of monetary values. As Government appointed Gatekeepers of the monetary system, many Libertarians see the Federal Reserve Bank or "Fed' to friends and enemies alike as an unnatural evil. Several government institutions managed to fall under the auspice of 'evil.' Current targets include the ubiquitous "Wall Street Bankers,' 'FEMA' (and thier Sith-like emergency powers), as well as the Transportation Safety Authority (which can really exercise thier own liberties by feeling thier way through your liberties)
The pre-amble to the Libtertarian Party platform reads "As Libertarians, we seek a world of Liberty: a world in which all individuals are soveriegn over thier own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her own values for the beneifit of others." Libertarians will tell you that they are not neccessarily for doing alot of things that may potentially injurious. They are just really against having restrictions on things that may be potentially injurious. They may not personally support doing drugs while having sex with hookers. They may not be for walking around with a pump action shotgun. If you impregnate the hooker, they may not agree with her having an abortion. They will take no stand on whether gambling away your rent money is a good thing. On the flip side, Libertarians believe that through your own self determination, you should have the right to have sex with prostitutes, injest powerful narcotics into your body, terminate a pregnancy, and have the freedom to bet on a sports book whenever you feel like it. It is not really that they are for potentially harmful or destructive acttivities, but see no right why something as oppresive as a government should be allowed to take any of it away. So, feel free to exercise every freedom in excess all the way to the morgue should that be your self determination. It is better to have you dead than have anyone have the right to stop you.
The up side of having a smaller government (or as close to no government at all) is that Government will take less from you. Depending on your point of view, a potential downside is that they (the GOVERNMENT!!!) will not go around giving anything away anymore either. Hence, the "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." A Libertarian does not see the Government as giving food to the poor. The Libertarian sees the Government as forcing another person to pay for that food. Libertarians favor ending any and all handouts as well as welfare. This would end support for foriegn nations up to and including Israel (which is kind of a sticking point for the right wing.) After all, self determination is all about self sufficiency. So if you are trading goods for services with a street walker, by gum, it is all money that you earned and nary a dime went to anyone that is not there with a price for a Cleveland Steamer. Libertarians also do not take a favorable view of the United Nations or even the League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson (...WILSON!!!) supported. Libertopia would also end foreign bases in other countries as well. A strong defense should really begin and end with your own borders. As such, Libertarians tend to be pro defense and anti war. In man's self determination, he really wants peace. It is best to stay out of each others business as well. Bases and embassies in other countries is simply an infringement on thier liberties. Besides, once everyone has free access to drugs, hookers, gambling, and guns... who is going to feel anytthing but happy and no one will need war. Liberty means everyone gets to die with a smile on thier face.
Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate in 1988. Since then, Paul has supposedly turned back into a Republican. At the very least, this is the line that Paul uses to get elected in Texas. Most Ron Paul supporters are of the opinion that if you just read Ron Paul's website or watch enough youtube feature Paul (because thats your freedom and liberty to watch possibly copyrighted materials for free), you will fall under the total an infinite sway of the genius of Ron Paul. If you manage to read a book by Ron Paul, then you might just start knocking door to door proclaiming that you have found the secrets of the universe in a way that He-Man, Castle Greystoke, and that silly bird Sorceress had never imagined. After all, Ron Paul had the collapse of 2008 figured out practically since he was in the womb. Ron Paul slayed the Philistines and lecture Solomon on the gold standard. Ron Paul also gave Solomon marital advice. Ron Paul is there for you when Chuck Norris is not. Somehow, Pauls' supporter are not only convinced that he is a Republican and not a Libertarian (there is not really good evidence on this point), but that Paul can somehow win the Republican nomination without carrying a single state in the primaries. This is a level of fuzzy math that the finest marijuana only allows you to sniff at. Since the most the Libertarian Party has ever garnered in a national election is less than one percent of the vote, the white wolf of Libertarianism has to wear the elephant skinned robes of the Grand Old Party. However, if Ron Paul is not the 2012 nominee for the republican Party, many of his supporters will cease to identify with the party and probably just go back to being .... well. Libertarians.