Libertarian.
Basically this is the minimization of government to its necessary services of protecting people from force or fraud, and providing a common defense. I would add that I don't mind government staying with its roles of providing postal services and the building of highways and such (highways are actually part of a good defense system). These are the things government CAN do well if it concentrates on them, and the first two are what makes government necessary at all. Other things it has tried to do have mainly failed, and I would say are better done by conscienscious, concerned, and professional individuals who are concerned with a given area.
ECONOMY: Abolish all governmental favoritism of certain industries, by disengaging it from industry entirely (except for, of course, enforcing the usual laws against force--and I say force includes pollution--and fraud). Interferences in industry may MEAN well (or, have meant well when first started), but the government apparatus built over time to implement these have and are always subject to being "bought" by some wealthy AND politically-connected industrialists at the expense of others, and the people as a whole. Dismantle the apparatus, enforce ONE law for ALL, and there will be nothing for these powerful to buy. Government should also not help corporations hide their misdeeds, legal (but scandalous) or illegal, from the people; nor should they enable the types of legal tricks used to bog down or force premature settlement of legitimate suits against corporations for willful misdeeds. With ONE law for everyone, plus a conscientious public with full access to information (afforded by the internet), the people will have power to boycott offending corporations for legal but scandalous activity, use courts effectively against illegal activity, and reenforce "good" corporations. The people CAN have power! They hardly do now. And yet we can maintain capitalism, without corruption, and let it work FOR us in ways only it can.
IMMIGRATION--free and unrestricted, save for checks of criminal records in home countries (if obtainable). If the prospective immigrant is guilty of violent or fraudulent offenses to other people, he or she should be denied entrance. If the prospect is only guilty of political "crimes" or other victimless "crimes" (say, an adulterous woman from an Islamic country where that may be illegal), then let them in, as if they had no criminal record at all. No more quotas based on country of origin, or denial of refugees. All immigrants would be, of course, subject to our laws, but since these laws will be much fewer, and simpler to understand, it will not be hard to educate them of these at all.
DRUGS--I think most of you know where I stand here. Is drug use force? Is drug use fraud? No? Then that is something for individuals to deal with.
PUNISHMENTS--Due to the imperfection of our judicial system (which will remain so no matter how close TO perfection we may get), I oppose the death penalty, although I believe there were and are people who deserve it. I say, make it an option--a person convicted of a capital crime can either serve their life in a prison MUCH harsher than the ones we have now, or waive all appeals and choose death by firing squad (by far the cheapest method, I think, plus the most humane in that a shot to the head is instant). That way those who insist on their innocence can live and hope that one day evidence comes up to overturn their verdicts, and we never kill the "wrong" man (of course, I suppose some who were innocent may still choose death rather than live in the prisons we'd have in my ideal system). Prisons should indeed be harsh, corrupt activities in prison absolutely PROHIBITED, a labor system to pay for their housing and food could be implemented, and sentences carried out without parole. Murder should DEFINITELY get life (and life don't mean 20 years, it means LIFE), thefts should at least get the time it takes (at prison wages, minus cost of room and board) worth of labor to repay the victim (that goes for so-called "white collar crime" as well), rape and other violent crime can get harsh sentences up to life, depending on the details of the crime itself--juries can decide these sentences too. Rape against children should get life.
GUNS--The right to keep and bear arms was enacted in large part to ensure the people a final defense against a tyrannical government. Our nation itself was founded by the people revolting against what they saw as tyranny (which arguably is child's play compared to much of what we have now). I believe the right to keep and bear arms should therefore not be infringed--save for weapons of mass destruction, which a people's defensive revolt would never use anyway. Trust and faith can only go so far after all. (By the way, libertarians do NOT endorse using violence for political means, and if you want to join the Libertarian Party in the US you must sign a statement pledging not to encourage or use violence for political means--otherwise the party will not admit you. Democracy must be allowed to work, and our role is to educate the voters and try to persuade them of our position.) Of course, crimes committed with guns or at gunpoint would be prosecuted as the force that they are. But aside from the ultimate defense against tyranny, people also have the need for guns to defend themselves from the force of others. This need MAY decrease as our police become more concentrated on enforcing laws agaisnt violent crime, and penalties for such increase greatly. But still, a policeman can only scrape your body off the street or off your kitchen floor--once you're dead, you're dead, whereas a person with the right to defend himself with a firearm MAY be able to prevent that himself. He certainly has the right to attempt to.
DEFENSE--strong and effective national defense is the ultimate DUTY of the government. Unfortunately, much of the corruption in government comes, profanely, in the name of "national defense"--be it grossly inflated prices charged by defense contractors, substandard products, with faulty testing, provided by same; or some "black ops" directed by agencies (NSC or CIA, sometimes in conjunction with the DEA) who have little to NO real accountability to ANYONE. Contracts should be conditional on prices charged and quality control standards met. In this way, government would regulate an industry, but only in exchange for its using their business. Full disclosure of the prices and standards would be made to the people (well, to simplify, a single standard allowing the contractor to make x profit on the products they're selling the government would suffice, subject to audit of course), to circumvent contractor executives from "buying" congressmen without our knowing, to allow price-gouging without our consent. As for the intelligence services, that's a hard one--but I think the accountability issue is one of our most serious problems, and we have to figure out how to establish accountability and morality of these without jeopardizing missions that in today's climate of warfare, MUST be secret. I WILL say that most of the activities of these agencies are very probably (according to varying accounts that sometimes surface) NOT really related to defense, but to mutual protection of various powerful entities and such, and unlawful advancement of some in the agencies themselves. This kind of thing MUST end.
As for size of forces, what we have now is okay (it gives some young people an opportunity to learn good skills and such, and if it ever came to a land war--nukes becoming equal or negated by defense systems in the future--remember that some nations DO have an advantage on us in numbers), but a small, efficient, elite force should remain at the core. There should never be a draft--unwilling draftees make poor soldiers who drag down the morale of the rest, as in Vietnam--in any emergency threat, our homeland would almost certainly NOT suffer from lack of willing defenders, if our country and government remain good and just.
INCOME TAX--given the extremely reduced size of government, elimination of corruption and waste (wow, CIV terms!), etc., taxation at the very least would be reduced to almost nil per capita. Some libertarians have done the math and believe that all of the necessary government functions would be fully financeable with the excise taxes and such we have now, and the income tax would be unnecessary and obsolete. This may be so, but we can at least count on the fact that they'd be pretty small if still existant. Selling the unnecessary buildings and such would pay off everyone's social security pensions that are pending, too, and most if not all of our outstanding debt.
FOREIGN POLICY--isolationist. We DO have some obligations to our present allies, and to the extent they are dependent on us for their safety, we should help transition them to total self-sufficiency as far as defense. This may take five or ten years or so, but it is only right NOT to just leave them hanging. But our goal should be total disengagement from policing the world, but presenting a powerful defense. Right now we have a big offense and if push came to shove (like it did September 11), a weak defense. This needs to be reversed. Or at least, our defense must be improved.
ABORTION--this is a hard one for me. Libertarians in general are divided between those who believe it is murder (and would therefore outlaw it), and those who believe it is not murder (and therefore wouldn't). I myself will admit that I do NOT know for sure how to define it--both sides have VERY good, but irreconcileable, points on this one. Sometimes it is prudent to be an educated fence-sitter, I don't like being in that position (hurts my arse, lol
), but there it is.... I CERTAINLY believe that if one wants to prevent abortions, one should have no problem with keeping contraceptive devices available to all--that is only logical. Personally, I would counsel my own children against abortion VERY strongly though--for it can have some serious psychological, and sometimes serious physical, complications. Or so I've heard.
Dang, this is a long post, and I know this thread wasn't intended to include such long posts (my apologies to rmsharpe, and if this needs to be moved somewhere else per the moderator I will do so). But I think I followed the format of stating my views on certain "key" issues, it's just that I find that given Libertarianism is rather new for many people, and thus not all that well understood, I need to give some detailed explanations for the uninitiated. Otherwise I suppose it WOULD sound crazy to some people--I certainly thought it did, as a lefty first exposed to its ideas many years ago--but with some explanation, it can be demonstrated to be workable, beneficent, and ultimately (in my mind anyway) IDEAL.
resently immigration is totally uncontrolled.We can´t control,what qualis someione must have to become a German.8 millions have been integrated more or less well,but another 8 million we can´t stand. 
Bad thing!
