http://stuffgeekslove.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/libertarianism/

This is the best explanation I can find. I am generalizing here, but most of the criticism about Libertarianism is that they so strongly believe in capitalism that they think the government shouldn't do anything (well, pretty much).

However, many libertarians also believe in little-to-no government interference in social issues, so they are often socially liberal. For example, Ron Paul, who campaigned for the Republican nomination, supported same-sex marriage, saying the government should not have the power to control how two citizens associated. However, he would likely oppose anti-discrimination laws for the same reason.

Here is the site of libertarian feminists: http://www.ifeminists.net

> What is the deal with libertarianism and why do some consider it incompatible with liberalism and feminism?

Liberalism in US is what is called socialism in Europe. No wonder libertarianism doesn't want to be associated with liberalism in North America.

Mainstream feminists call i-Feminism (another name, due to "individualistic") as anti-feminism. Mostly because i-Feminism doesn't support quotas, affirmative actions and big goverment (mainstream feminism needs big goverment in order to redistribute wealth to mitigate lesser women's economic independence due to reproductive biology inequality).

P.S. Ron Paul is much more libertarian than republican. I admire him.

Libertarianism is the belief that poor people should have the freedom to die quietly in the gutter, rather than being forced to have access to food and doctors.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html is a good source of essays on libertarianism.

In brief and without nuance, Libertarians believe in limited government regulation. When you get into details, it means they oppose things like EPA restrictions. It really has nothing to do with being liberal. Limited government (in the US) is a conservative position, and there are many conservatives who call themselves Libertarians.

Isaac Asimov's definition of libertarianism: "I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve." He added, "It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help."

Libertarians believe that the government should have little to no say in the lives of individuals. They think the government should only interfere when you violate someone else's freedom, like if you kill, assualt, rape, kidnap, etc. They want very minimal taxes and government funding, almost no standing army (just a reserve and enough to respond to an attack), and very little if any government aid. They would like to privatize education and all other social services, even things liek the mail. Basically, the government would be lawmakers, courts, and police, and then would take care of basic road building and other similar infrastructure things that are needed for public safety.

Libertarians are good to have in the government, because they keep the others from wasting too much money or violating rights, but you can't have a whole lot of them, or you start losing basic structure to your society. And of course, like all other parties, they have extremists, who are essentially anarchists, and moderates, like me, who like the idea of libertarianism in some issues, like for social issues among adults and government bureaucracy, but know we can't ignore the needs of the poor, elderly, disabled, mentally retarded, or of children.

And as for abortion... Libertarians vary. Some believe life starts at conception, so you can't abort unless you're saving your own health because that's violating another's rights; most believe that it's the woman's choice and the government shouldn't get involved. The party itself takes no official stance. However, the Libertarian party is where all the small-government Republicans fled after the neocons took over, so the party itself has slid a little right socially.

Oh, and you asked why people are hostile towards it. Well, the farther you get from center in the Libertarian party the less sustainable it is, and the extremists are crazy anarchists who think we should all be able to do whatever the hell we want with no consequences. And because the moderates pick a major party to vote for, the radicals kind of have the run of the place.

Thanks for all these responses! From what you all have said, I think I'd agree with the idea of the government not sticking its face into our privacy and taking our rights away. However, when others are suffering, that's everybody's business, so I don't support ignoring people's needs, especially not the way Isaac Assimov puts it (I'm shocked he said that...). I do support the separation of the government from all kinds of institutions (like religion), but not healthcare or things we really need. And I do like the idea of dissent if the government is not doing it right.

I'm glad you've clarified these ideas for me, because I see not much difference between liberalism and libertarianism, except for the big thing which is that the latter seems to advocate not 'interfering', which I think might actually be the number one thing that has bugged me about the past eight years. This denial that other people's suffering is our business has pissed me off more than anything. It is of course our business if gays are prevented from marrying or if there's prejudice going on in the school system. And here in the UK, whilst we have a LOT of issues with our National Health Service, I have NEVER heard anyone say we'd be better off without it.