I’m not a Libertarian; registered or otherwise. I follow libertarian principles; in particular I am what is known as a minarchist (and I will explain what that means in a refresher post I will put up later today).

In fact, I’m registered as a Republican in Arizona, because that is the only way I’m going to get anything done; and because the Arizona Republican party is worth supporting a lot more than the AZ libertarian party is (the AZ LP is full of 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy paranoiacs etc…).

Remember, all politics is local.

To address some of your questions more directly:

I never advocated for unfettered liberty. That isn’t libertarianism, that’s libertineism (which I abhor).

As I said, I am a minarchist. I believe that not only is some restraint on liberty necessary; that some government is necessary. Without some government, anarchy will always give rise to tyranny.

I believe that abortion is morally wrong; however I also believe that getting the government involved is a greater moral wrong.

In contrast to that however, I believe that abortion past a certain point is inarguably murder.

Yes, in those circumstances, you are clearly violating someone elses rights; that of the baby (I refuse to call a viable baby a fetus).

Your presumption here however seems to depend on the concept that morality is relative. It is not. Not only that, but you are presenting a strawman in saying that I “explode all personal moral choices”.

That’s simply a ridiculous assertion.

Liberty does not need to be justified. Property rights do not need to be justified. What needs to be justified, is when liberty, and property rights, are abridged.

It is always, and explicitly immoral to abridge those rights, without great justification. Now, you can argue about the justification all you want (and many do and will endlessly).

In order for that argument to have any meaning however, you have to recognize that certain inherent and fundamental rights exist without having to justify them; and that they must be defended rigorously.

1 If it makes me feel good, it must be alright
2 If it makes me feel bad it must be wrong
etc

rightfully castigates the narcissistic rules of mob rule, but your list questions all moral choices, even yours. Because you have advanced an argument that explodes all personally determined moral choices, you need to justify your own moral choices, such as life, liberty, property rights, and the pursuit of happiness, in a way that is consistent with your other argument. I think your list is flawed, but you may find another way to resolve it.

Here is an example: Is banning partial birth abortions justifiable based on “morality” – which, after all, is the only argument upon which banning it can be based, right? Those who desire partial birth abortions to be banned have that desire due to a firm belief that the practice constitutes the murder of a human being. Which one assumes people of all political persuasions would consider immoral.

So there’s the morality factor coming into play.

BUT….is the banning of partial birth abortions instead an unacceptable infringement upon (and therefore “abnegates” to use your word) “human liberty and human spirit?”

I am not trying to be facetious at all, and I hope I’m not coming across that way. I am a former Republican, who is an economic conservative and somewhat moderate to conservative, socially. (Which according to my own government’s Department of Homeland Security, classifies me as a potential “right wing extremist” who may alarmingly be considered enlistment fodder for some unnamed fantasy boogeyman “militia” group – but I digress).

I am now a man without a political party, wandering in the wilderness, “clingin to my guns and my religion.” (Dear Leader’s got me pegged).

I don’t know much about Libertarian Party, which my post has probably made obvious. Perhaps there is a manifesto of some sort somebody could link me to, which would help provides answers to things like my query above.

I am starting to think that the main issue is coercion verses voluntarism/voluntaryism. However, then there must be some kind of agreement of fundamental rights otherwise there will still be conflicts. I am thinking of property rights.

I’m curious how you define natural:

Person A plants and harvests two bushels of wheat and Person B catches two strings of fish. They voluntarily agree to exchange one bushel of wheat for one string of fish. Is that natural?

What an absurd statement! No economic system is natural — not capitalism nor socialism nor anything else you can think of. Economics, in and of itself, is an artificial man-made construction.