What I really think I want is society where I have freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of meeting. A place where no one is born with more liberty then others, for example if some is born with a treatable illness that needs to be treated in order for them to be free, if they can't then as a group we have to take care of them. Workers need to have as many rights as employers and the enviornment is a top concern, as it infriges my right to health if some big oil company is dumbing crap in all my lacks. I don't believe in centralization as I fear the USSR again. So can I be a liberatrian?
Yeah, you sound very libertarian to me. Every problem that you have mentioned has demonstrated far greater solutions within the free market, than it has with government.
There is a bit of misconception here. A right and a privilege are two separate things. We all have rights to our own bodies, our own property, but it is not a right to impose onto others, even if well intended. When force is applied in the form of a good intention, more often than not, it results in a negative effect, the opposite in which it was designed to prevent.
You don't have the right to pollute my air, my water, my land. If anything, using the free market approach in conjunction to property rights, we minimize the corruption that occurs. Because we agree that government is the only body that is allowed to use force(one definition of what a governing body is) the individuals who do not take environmental issues seriously can, and do, lobby the government to give them special regulations. What may seem well intended, and often it was not well-intended(just socially engineered legislature and regulation), the polluter becomes protected.
With property rights and no government entanglement, we can sue these companies, and use the government to apply force onto the more powerful entity.
This creates an incentive for the business to minimize its pollution, and within a free market, other businesses learn from their past mistakes immediately, and you will see changes happen in a more effective manor. Why does this ultimately work so well, even against conventional logic? Because the market learns from history far better than the government can. The government isn't a master of every industry, therefore it is nearly impossible for it's selective regulations to outpace efficiency.
Efficiency is ultimately achieving the same results with less waste, less waste is essentially less pollution, less waste, less liability, more incentive to improve, because this means more wealth is built.
Employers and workers should have no special privileges. This way they are both equal. The employer creates an incentive for the worker to start their own business and compete with the employer, and both share a split of the profit. In a free market, innovation and the consumer are both king. Therefore, if you were to shift the power from the employer, to the worker, you then create an added cost to the consumer. The employer who understands the free market, or merely recognizes that one exists, will do far more to keep you, just as long as you provide the agreed upon services. This is not a theory, it's reality.
As for forcing others to pay for the health and well being of the less fortunate, the free market also provides an amazing alternative. One that has been overlooked recently in our highly manipulated and controlled market.
You can lower the cost of healthcare, improve the quality of it, and allow for a greater innovation within those goods and services. This is important, as like the rest on the topics here, you have another set of unintended consequences by using social medicine to treat one set of patients, but you then cripple the producers from aiding to the innovations that help everyone's general health and welfare. Not to mention that there was a time not all that long ago where nobody was turned away from seeing a doctor, and this was possible because of the low costs to treat a patient. Maximum service, minimum cost. Now, I'm not sure if you are interested in the premise or the actual results, in your left-libertarian ideals, but you can disagree with me here, and still remain within the libertarian threshold, easily.
There is a somewhat famous quote that demonstrates the foundation of thought within a libertarian model.
A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
Either or, I hope I could answer some of your questions.
