I think it is important to look at what I see as the two main sides of 'libertarianism'.
-The Moral Argument-
Libertarianism is about rights & opposing coercion. Other people & by extension governments should stay out of other people's business. Don't tell me where to work or what to do. Don't tell me to wear a seatbelt. Mostly that works fine
-The Economic Argument-
There is the second argument that (when it being criticised) gets called 'idealistic' or 'religious.' This is the idea that by not intervening in peoples' lives & by extension in companies, everything will work out good. Markets will function better. Economic output will be higher. Public good would be increased. This relies on economic theories, theoretically anyway. So far, most countries are really a balance here.
These are seperate & the arguments for them are seperate. On the first, I am pretty clear where I stand: I agree mostly with the libertarian position on personal rights. I am against drug/alcohol/seatbelt/smoking/exercise bans, prohibitions or requirements. I am willing to relax that if the negative public effects are substantial & prohibition side effects are less substantial. So if we legalised drugs & found we ended up with a severe amphetamine problem, I would consider reinstating the prohibition.
My biggest problem is the welfare approach. For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state. If it is provided by non-state bodies to a sufficient level, the state doesn't need to do it. I would even extend that to international welfare.
The economic arguments get very technical. It is also an area where theories are rarely good at being predictive. I see the connection between the moral & economic theories. But I am not as worried about the rights of a corporation as I am the rights of an individual.
> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state.
I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the /federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is arguably an inefficient system caused by bad government policies.
I'm a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. If it ain't in the Constitution, it's for the states to decide. If the people of a state want welfare, they'll vote someone in who will give it to them; whoever opposes can move to another state. 50 different implementation possibilities for everything. That's freedom.
I'm not American. But frankly, I don't know what it is you guys have with your constitution. It's part of the legal framework. It's OK. The US Constitution was a legal framework for operating a problematic place & it did that job quite well. But I have no idea why it keeps getting referred to as if it's some sort of ultimate moral authority. The Bill of Rights is also a good sort of a document. But I don't see why it is better then any other high level statement of morality.
Some parts of it seem outdated. The US isn't an ungovernable collection of states that need Federation only for dealing with other countries anymore. There is also nothing wrong with Federation if it works. Even if you decide to work at county level, that's fine. But as with anything, you end up risking income discrepancies & the consequences of this (migration, resentment, estrangement, etc.)
But anyway, that's a completely administrative issue. How you should form a Government (states//Federation, Republic, Kingdom) is one thing. Deciding what this government should do is a seperate issue.
If you are not opposed to Government provision of health/welfare (or as I prefer Government guarantee of these, but the de facto difference is quite small), I think you are pushing the definition of libertarian.
-The Moral Argument-
Libertarianism is about rights & opposing coercion. Other people & by extension governments should stay out of other people's business. Don't tell me where to work or what to do. Don't tell me to wear a seatbelt. Mostly that works fine
-The Economic Argument-
There is the second argument that (when it being criticised) gets called 'idealistic' or 'religious.' This is the idea that by not intervening in peoples' lives & by extension in companies, everything will work out good. Markets will function better. Economic output will be higher. Public good would be increased. This relies on economic theories, theoretically anyway. So far, most countries are really a balance here.
These are seperate & the arguments for them are seperate. On the first, I am pretty clear where I stand: I agree mostly with the libertarian position on personal rights. I am against drug/alcohol/seatbelt/smoking/exercise bans, prohibitions or requirements. I am willing to relax that if the negative public effects are substantial & prohibition side effects are less substantial. So if we legalised drugs & found we ended up with a severe amphetamine problem, I would consider reinstating the prohibition.
My biggest problem is the welfare approach. For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state. If it is provided by non-state bodies to a sufficient level, the state doesn't need to do it. I would even extend that to international welfare.
The economic arguments get very technical. It is also an area where theories are rarely good at being predictive. I see the connection between the moral & economic theories. But I am not as worried about the rights of a corporation as I am the rights of an individual.