You should read his posts in the Ayn Rand threads. Actually bothering to look at the source material for talking points is not one of Little Nemo’s strengths.
Okay… Once more, I’ll observe the failed Confederation that the Constitution replaced. I’d say, we tried that, and it didn’t work.
But you did answer the question, for which thanks. At this point, I’m coming to think of the Libertarian Party as nothing more than a party, with a wish-list/agenda/platform. The party is a little more radical than most others, in that its platform entails several Constitutional Amendments. (The Tea Party wants four or five; the Republicans want at least one; the Democrats have had better luck using the Supreme Court to get what they want from the Constitution, but this is tricky and very perilous.)
What I wanted most here has been answered: the Libertarian “Form of Government” doesn’t have any really new or innovative built-in organic safeguards against illibertarian changes to the law. We already have limited protections in the very high requirements for Amendments. In my mind that, itself, is a strong “libertarian” protection, and one of the strongest protections of all of our rights.
Not sure that is correct. We tried a weak federal government and strong state governments, which didn’t work. The Constitution wasn’t all that different from the AoC except certain powers reserved to the states were given to the feds. It was just a weaker form of federalism, not a weaker from of government.
At any rate, I agree that Libertarinism, in it’s pure form, would be failure for the reasons I already mentioned.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain this to the OP. 
That fits with what both me and others already said. You are almost certainly need a strong Constitutional protections under libertarian ideals although none is strictly prescribed.
I am getting the impression that these types of descriptions are much too abstract for some and they aren’t ever going to get it if it isn’t put into more concrete terms. I will do that for you. A modern, moderate libertarian someone that supports both the ACLU and the NRA. Free speech is paramount even if the speech is offensive to some. The National Security Agency should be be defunded for all domestic spy activities and most international ones. The U.S. military should be scaled back greatly. There may be some social programs that help the truly despondent but that should not be paid for through continual budget deficits. I am not ashamed to say that one of the features of the libertarian ideals is the freedom to screw up so badly that you starve yourself to death through poor choices even though the chances of that are low even with no government safeguards.
Libertarianism is all about self-directed individual freedom and does not predict any particular social or economic outcome. The chances are outstanding that it works better than other, prescribed systems for most people but a few at the margins will not like it at all.
That’s a good summary, but I don’t think the 2nd amendment is particularly libertarian. Not in the sense of “Congress shall make no law…”. Congress is not given the authority to regulate personal belongings, so guns don’t need to be called out specifically. But I would expect very tough penalties for the illegal use of guns, specifically because use of such a weapon is the worst form of physical coercion.
Strict regulation of guns should be consistent with libertarian outlook in my view, in the same way that strict regulation of air pollution would be consistent with a libertarian outlook.
What about it? At first I thought you must be joking or you were deliberately being sarcastic, but if not, thank you for proving my point precisely about the simple-minded idealism of bumper-sticker ideologies like libertarianism. I couldn’t have put it better myself. Many of us prefer to focus on meaningful basic human rights and freedoms like those articulated in social democracy that I referenced earlier which have been pragmatically shown to contribute to fair, just, and stable societies. The link there to what other nations have accomplished is worth a look.
Just as an aside, by sheer coincidence, Matt Taibbi has just released a new book – The Divide – American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap which was reviewed here, and there’s also a great recent book by Christia Freeland (which I only found out about because she was on The Daily Show a few months ago) – Plutocrats- The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else – that was reviewed here. Which I think might help to answer your question. The short answer being that it leads to an egregiously unfair, unjust, inhumane, and dangerously unstable society that ultimately benefits no one.
And the point here is just this. That sociopolitical systems are complex systems that evolve from long and hard experience, and simplistic ideologies like those of the Libertarian Party are humorous in the reading but would be tragic in the execution.
Is that what you think it means? How about the concept of respecting everyone’s basic human rights equally regardless of their bank account? That’s what meaningful and pragmatically evolved social systems are about.
Part of the problem is that some libertarian rhetoric is unhelpfully millenialist. It is portrayed (sometimes) as something entirely new, revolutionary, ground-breaking, and never-before-tried. We’d hear the “Island of Libertaria” or “Republic of Minerva” idea put forward, promising a land with no problems. (Specifically, that respect for private property rights and no initiation of violence would guarantee that all problems would be resolved in a rational manner.)
This was what had misled me for a long time: I wasn’t getting the idea. This thread has gone a long way to help that.
(It also didn’t help that I was in a forum much like this one, with an anarchist as one of its more vocal members, for many years.)
There’s a lot of truth in that. Maybe mainstream libertarians are being unfairly linked to the more radical fringe.
But I think there’s also an element of being a Special Snowflake in this. If you just want to see less government regulation, why not just say that? Why do people feel the need to say they want less government regulation because they’re a libertarian? It seems to be suggesting that we both want the same thing but my reasons for wanting it are more profound than yours.
Little Nemo: You have to make a distinction between what Libertarians believe and what they believe they believe. To find out what people believe they believe, you just have to ask them. When they can’t give you straight answers to simple questions, you look to their behaviors.
In practice Libertarians spend far more time attacking the welfare state and advocating drug legalization than anything else. They show far less interest in reforming local car-oriented zoning laws for example, though those can be highly restrictive and market distorting. And once given an ounce of power it’s all pliers and bamboo shoots (metaphorically speaking): we saw that in the Chilean case. In the National Review, Whittaker Chambers gave the most cogent summary of Ayn Rand’s interpretation of libertarianism: “To a gas chamber - go!” Cogent, though less than 100.0000% accurate.
Basically Libertarians are conservatives who like drugs more than self-awareness.
True of darn near everyone, isn’t it? Don’t we all suffer under various kinds of delusions (mostly benign) regarding our beliefs?
Are you saying that people haven’t been answering Little Nemo in this thread?
Yes, I think that aspect is universal, thus Socrates’ injunction to know thyself. I picked up the distinction here of all places, though it’s implicit in revealed preference theory.
That’s what I was attempting to do in the OP. I created some scenarios and asked libertarians how they would respond to them.
I think these questions are reasonable and I could begin to answer their analogue for a Rawlsian liberal or a center-left Democrat. The first would involve a conceptual approach, the second a sociological one. What I’m picking up are evasions vis a vis Little Nemo’s questions, unsurprisingly due to the theological orientation of conservative cognitions.
ETA:
You were asking what they believe they believe.
Please.
Here’s the first question I asked:
And here was Human Action’s response:
Are you really claiming this was a straight answer to my question?
Yes! If you ask “What colour does that taste like, green or red” , and are told that there is no real choice to be made there, you have received a completely accurate and straight answer. He pointed out that your question was ridiculous and made no sense, albeit more politely. Your questions make no sense because you have made no effort to understand the positions you are “Just asking questions” about. You’ve some strange preconceptions of what they are, and refuse to try and understand the very coherent and honest responses you’ve received.
You’re kidding here right?
I’m (for once) with the Libertarians here - Nemo, your question just doesn’t quite work from a Libertarian stand point. Human Action’s answer was, according to Libertarian thought, a perfectly valid answer. I’d even argue that it’s a perfectly valid answer regardless of your political philosophy - you have free association, but that doesn’t mean your boss has to maintain your services if that association bothers him. The reason I consider this an issue in my political philosophy is not that his free association is somehow “trumping” yours, but that his right to free association needs to be somewhat abridged for society to function, because otherwise the result is a complete breakdown in the worker-employer relationship for all but the most skilled and valuable workers. It’s not dodging the question to point out that there’s no real conflict there. The conflict (as is often the case in libertarian philosophy) comes when this is applied in the real world, and the results are things we think are bad - things like lockouts (why did I think these were illegal? 
), firing workers because they get sick and are easily replaceable, generally forbidding unionization, and skewing the employer-employee power scale inexcusably in one direction.
It can be both, if the outcome of the democratic process is a libertarian government. This is what I was alluding to is post 215.
Think of democracy as a process, and libertarianism (or socialism, or whatever) as an outcome.
The only fundamental principle of democracy is equal participation in government. Libertarianism isn’t a method for choosing who will have power (though it is almost always assumed or stated to be the people), but rather a set of beliefs as to what the limits of that power should be. That is, how people ought to vote, not who may vote, or on what.
By analogy:
A man owns a house. He happens to be a staunch Falconist, a hypothetical religion. Concerned about his neighbor’s possible lack of faith, he assembles a 2,000 watt stereo system to blast sermons at high volume at his neighbor’s house. The principle of freedom of religion would say the Falconist has a right to use whatever means he thought appropriate to spread and defend his religion. The principle of the right to quiet enjoyment of property would say the neighbor could bring a civil action against the Falconist for this nuisance. Which side do you agree with?
But wait, you might say. The freedom of religion doesn’t, in fact, give anyone the right to do what I’ve suggested it does. There is, in fact, no dilemma between rights here.
Pointing that out isn’t evading the question.