What is the libertarian view on government involvement in regards to those that can not defend themselves? Like someone who has Down Syndrome or other mental handicap.

Most libertarians would agree that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of others. If someone is incapable of defending their rights then it is the governments job to help.

The best way to provide that help would be on a voluntary basis. Libertarians reject using violence (or the threat of violence) to achieve providing help to the handicapped. We would rather have a society where private charity provides most of the help to those who can't help themselves and government is second. I wouldn't want to remove all safety nets. However I believe that too many people don't help precisely because they see that government has taken over the role of providing charity. We have almost 50% of our wealth taken from us, sucked up by bureaucrats, and a small part of that given to the needy. Its no wonder that we are left with little resources to give to charity. We as a society need to change that.

Government today spends too much time attempting to correct every single perceived problem leaving society with little resources to help fix real problems. Government programs tend to be very wasteful and inefficient. Private charity tends to be much more efficient.

PS: I'm a Scoutmaster of a special needs troop so your question is something I think of often.

The very first debate I entered as a Libertarian candidate was at the ARC of Gloucester County. At the time I had no idea what the libertarian view of such things were, and I was debating Senator Steve Sweeney, who happens to have a child with Downs Syndrome. I got creamed. Since then I've been trying to come up with a good "political" solution to this problem. As Jay has said, our ideal view would be one in which private charity handled the situation, so our question becomes how do we encourage private charity as opposed to depending on the government? One answer could be a tax incentive. For every dollar donated to a charitable organization that deals with physically/mentally handicapped people, an equivelant (or greater) tax credit could be given. The idea is that many people of means (or corporations, etc) would be encouraged to give their money to charity than to the government.

Kevin Ferrizzi wrote:

QUOTE:
The very first debate I entered as a Libertarian candidate was at the ARC of Gloucester County... I got creamed. Since then I've been trying to come up with a good "political" solution to this problem...

*LOL* I am sorry but that really is funny. You really have to know your audience.
So, on a slightly different subject, where would someone like me who is probably a progressive libertarian, fit into the NJ Libertarian Party. I am pro gun control, pro death penalty and anti- abortion, but feel like crying every time I see the government basically handing out corporate welfare like the democrats want to give to the auto industry, but feel social welfare- like workfare- should be kept, with many reforms cutting government buearcracy, but not oversite, out of the mix.

I know libertarians are supposed to be very open minded, but I am still new to discovering that I am one, though I am 42 years old. I am a huge believer in individual freedom and laugh whenever I think about the fact that in most courts in America you can plead: guilty, not guilty, guilty by reason of insanity and in some courts nolo contendre. Nowhere in this great country, where you are innocent until proven guilty, can you plead innocent.
A lot of what this organization says they stand for I agree with, just not necessarily to the degree espoused.

Libertarians, in my opinion can be personally for or against anything. The one thing we all agree on that seperates us from the D's and R's is that we do not wish to use the government's monopoly on the use of force to MAKE others live and think the way we do. I'll use myself as an example. I am Pro-Life. If my girlfriend gets pregnant, there would be no option other than to have the child in my eyes. I in no way feel that I have the right to FORCE other people to bow down to my point of view. Whatever you do in your life, so long as it does no direct harm to me, is none of my business, and certainly not the government's. As an ex-Republican, the hardest part of committing to libertarianism for me was to stop myself from wanting to make everyone else think like me. Live and let live, so to speak.
I do not own a firearm. I probably never will. I have reasons for that, but they are my own and noone else's business. I do not feel I have the right to stop anyone else from owning a gun if they want, seeing how it is in the Constitution and all. Taking responsibility for your personal decisions is the core of libertarianism. Projecting your ego and belief system on others is the core of liberalism and conservatism.
As for the death penalty, as a party we are against it, as it clearly falls under the use of force. Personally, I used to think that people who commit multiple or particularly heinous murders, or crimes against children should be tortured then put to death in the most gruesome manner that could be devised (I favored stoning by the victim's family and chemical castration for sex crimes). Not very libertarian ideas. I have come to the realization that there is no greater punishment than the taking of one's personal liberty. If I had to choose between death and life in prison, I would surely pick death.

As far as I know the party is not for or against the death penalty. We are against the initiation of force. The death penalty is not an initiation of force, rather it is a reaction to someone else's initiation of force. As a punishment libertarians generally prefer that the criminal provide restitution to his victims if possible.