[Kamil]

As indicated on the official Libertarian Party website, "Libertarians support a great deal of liberty and freedom of choice in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and they tolerate economic and social diversity."

A while back, I was told that the function and role of the libertarian government isn't simply to protect the people from violence and coercion, it is also to manage national financial matters and international treaties with foreign nations, however, it was added that the most notable function is that of the protection of the individual from any physical harm. I'm not certain if the part about financial matters and treaties being in the hands of the libertarian government is correct, but I'd like to ask of the precise. functions of the libertarian government in libertarian society; everything from its functions to its composition.

Firstly, is there a sort of administrative apparatus, namely, institutionalized in the governmental structure as the head, simply to administer and enfoce the precise functions to be carried out by certain subsidiary functions found within the state, such as the police, military? Will the governmental apparatus, if any, have jurisdiction over these subsidiary functions or perhaps, the program of which they're to abide by in the form of laws, etc? Moreover, will there be any designated function in the government where the people can be involved in political matters and make decisions, opposed to a minority above society? I personally feel that there should be no such groups within the government that has jurisdiction over vital matters in society. In fact, holding such a position when I was first introduced to politics is what led me to becoming an anarchist. Unfortunately, it was Ayn Rand which made me perceive this state of society as legitimate, in which I progressed to a more radical position with major anarchist influence of which I encountered in my bewildered political days traced back to a few months ago. The quote is, if anyone's interested: "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may only resort to force only against those who start the use of force."-Ayn Rand

[smashthestate]

"Libertarians support a great deal of liberty and freedom of choice in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and they tolerate economic and social diversity."

This is a very "nutshell" description of what the Libertarian Party is about. It by no means is an all-inclusive, three-sentence manifesto of the entire ideology of Libertarianism and it shouldn't be considered as such, for two reasons. First, as with nearly any ideology, there is never a full and complete concensus on every single issue that the ideology takes a stance on. Secondly, this short paragraph's only purpose is to give a very broad view of how the most Libertarians see society and government.

national financial matters and international treaties with foreign nations, however, it was added that the most notable function is that of the protection of the individual from any physical harm.

Before I begin addressing your concerns, let me just say that my opinions on the Libertarian society may not be the opinions of other Libertarians. Again, not every Libertarian agrees on every issue. Now back to the topic:

This is the way I see what you speak of. Basically the government within a Libertarian society would not be involved in international treaties with foreign nations, because the government and military is totally and purposefully isolated from other nations' governments and militaries. The Libertarian society would be basically neutral on every issue, and would avoid foreign conflicts and affairs as much as possible.

Additionally, it would indeed handle certain national financial matters. For example, I am of the opinion that the government should be the only one allowed to print legal-tender currency. This would not be forced on the people as the only tool of exchange, obviously, but it would be the only legal-tender currency.

For example, if I wanted to give someone a wooden nickel for a piece of candy instead of the state-produced nickel, and he had no objections, then we could proceed with the trade without consequence from the state.

Firstly, is there a sort of administrative apparatus, namely, institutionalized in the governmental structure as the head, simply to administer and enfoce the precise functions to be carried out by certain subsidiary functions found within the state, such as the police, military?

Yes. An administrative body would exist to oversee the allocation of funds to state subsidiary groups such as the police and military forces.

Will the governmental apparatus, if any, have jurisdiction over these subsidiary functions or perhaps, the program of which they're to abide by in the form of laws, etc?

The ability of the administrative body to change the core functions of the subsidiary programs would be severely limited by exist laws (laid out in a national document such as a constitution).

Moreover, will there be any designated function in the government where the people can be involved in political matters and make decisions, opposed to a minority above society?

Absolutely. The people would be allowed to challenge of file for lawsuit against the government if they feel that it has outstepped its powers laid out in the national document. Also, if any new policies or current issues are "on the table" so to speak, and there is no direction from the national document on how to proceed, then a vote would be held and a supermajority only would decide the best way to proceed.

I personally feel that there should be no such groups within the government that has jurisdiction over vital matters in society.

Can you give me some examples of what vital matters of society you are refering to so I can better answer your concern?

[Kamil]

Can you give me some examples of what vital matters of society you are refering to so I can better answer your concern?

Don't sweat it, the matter does not need to be taken up. If it this, I assure you that all of thise will digress into a debate between anarchism and libertarianism. It's simply an anarchist thing. Also, thanks for the response.