Replies

"most conservative republicans, on the other hand, are laissez-faire toward the economy and want to get the government out of our hair."

I would agree. I think that few really notice what the Republican party REALLY is doing, which appears to be supporting the growth of bigger government (although at a slower rate than the democrats). It appears that it has worked with the democrats to do this for the last century.

"i want government out of my hair. i want to spend more of my money."

Few would ask otherwise. The problem is that I don't see the Republicans REALLY doing that. They talk a good line, but they too are bureaucrats that get into government for the power, the perks, and the money. Yes, taxes go down a bit, but government growth continues. (Bush didn't increase spending as much as the democrats did, but it DID increase.) And as soon as the democrats get back in power, the taxes go up even more. The Libertarian and Constitution Party both want to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Of course, the powers-that-be are not interested in changes that take power away from them. They've worked long and hard to get things setup with them at/near the top.

"the republicans give me a viable alternative to democrat's growing socialist program."

Here I have to disagree. I don't see it as a "viable" alternative, just one with a conservative flavor. Even with Republicans in office, my taxes are huge, government is not significantly reduced, the democratic are not denounced and thrown in jail. Republicans appear to like their power too. (Notice that the "Patriot Act" accomplishes the things that we have fought against for decades, and less than a handful voted against it!)

"they also (at least the conservative ones) believe in laws that are consistent with biblical civil laws in the old testament"

I see them pay lip service to that, but I also see them allow the democrat's legislation get through and I don't see them turning it back when they have the opportunity. I can easily see a Libertarian in office promote Old Testament law at a personal level, and even publically, but still support Constitutional limits on the government. Most Republicans in office don't even try. (Take a good look at how they adhere to their oath to uphold and support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If they deliberatly fall down in their clearly-defined oath, sworn before G*d, then I don't trust them to adhere to the rest of their religious pretentions other than to gain votes.)

"all i know is that members of the libertarian party believe in as little government as possible."

Pretty much sums it up. Certainly on the national level (although they believe that at the local level people can do pretty much what they agree on: If you don't like it, you can always move.)

"but i have yet to figure out the values that undergird the philosophy."

I'm not a good one to answer this, but I will try. Basically it boils down to not stepping on other people's toes: It is immoral to initiate force against another person. It is immoral for an individual and it is immoral for a government. Of course, once force is initiated, it can be responded to. Other than that, you can do pretty much what you want to, just be prepared to face the consequences. No government programs to bail you out of the hole you dig for yourself. Things like polluting the river, keeping your neighbors awake all night, stealing your neighbor's car for your habit, etc would be delt with in a common law court: If you can show damages (polluted water, lack of sleep, missing car, etc) they pay.

(I suspect you are concerned with the pro-life/pro-choice issue- In the case of pro-life/pro-choice the big L Libertarian party says that it is not the province of the federal government to make this decision, although it can be made at a state level. As a small l libertarian, I would say that it would boil down to the decision as to when a person becomes a person. Many pro-lifers believe this is at conception. Currently the pro-choicers have it defined as after the child makes it out of the birth canal. IMHO, the best answer would be one that pleased NOBODY: 1st trimester -legal, 2nd trimester -VERY dependant on circumstances, 3rd trimester -no way. Once we define "person", then that person has the same rights as anyone else, force cannot be initiated against them -note: some intellegent decisions would have to be made for children and when they become independent of their parents. Hopefully more intellegent answers than we have currently. Once again, just my opinion, and note, this answer doesn't please ME either!)

I have to go, so I will try to find more info elsewhere or direct you to someone who does a better job of explaining this...I've seen some excellent threads on the subject. I suspect that this thread has some good explainations in it already, but I havn't had time to read a single page of them yet!