Argument: There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score

One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.

As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.

Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.

Candidate 1: "It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.

The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.

Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]

The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.

[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html"
Candidate 2: "Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.

Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .

[i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
Candidate 3: "The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.

It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.

In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.

The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies."
Candidate 4: "The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.

The role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty

and the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state."
Candidate 5: "Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&amp;lpg=PA14&amp;ots=d3yCq04CFZ&amp;... pp.15-16"
Candidate 6: "It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.

The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view."

The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.

It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.

In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.

The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.
