This is just a bit of fun as it's not quite bedtime and there's not much else happening. I know I've done one similar already, but this is based around policies and just explain the reasons why so you don't always think I'm simply mad.
Clearly from my own material the libertarian flag is flown large and proud. The state should protect people from hurting each other and their property, and look after the people unable to look after themselves, ie health and welfare. Otherwise keep the fuck out. Equality is the enemy of libertarianism, as the false concept of everyone being equal means they should live equal regardless of their abilities or circumstances leads to the most interfering possible governments, rearranging every aspect of our lives, even though we employ them to look after us and not create a society they have chosen personally as de facto dictators.
So it would be more a programme of keeping the existing criminal law based solely on the protection principle, and removing the entire sweep of rules designed purely to enforce morals, which outside the protection are totally personal to every individual so can never represent a group of any size. That includes causing offence, as defamation laws protect us from lies, while the other lot stop people speaking the truth.
Then it would be more a matter of dismantling existing rules and regulations which impose on people's lives with no discernible benefit, planning law would be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing anything unless it could be shown to be far worse on the area than anything else nearby. I would remove all unnecessary restrictions on transport, clearing the roads of humps and chicanes which damage cars and cause accidents, and were only put there in the first place by extremist councils who want to put people off driving altogether, despite the fact buses and ambulances have to use the same roads as well and have caused many deaths directly by slowing down emergency vehicles. I would bring in discretionary speed limits, ie was the car going too fast for the conditions, and only bring in mandatory limits at the highest possible speed as on country roads the speed is still mainly 60mph and no one actually does it on single lane tracks as they don't want to have an accident. The same applies on every other road.
I'd bring in a flat rate tax, as we can spend our own money better than the state, and if set at 30% or lower after a massive personal allowance (to limit poverty to a bare minimum level) it would make everyone better off and circulate money more freely, and have no incentive either to avoid it or send companies abroad to lose it altogether. There would be no taxes on essentials as they are immoral and affect the poor far more than anyone else as they spend far more on food and fuel from the total they own than anyone else.
I would virtually stop immigration (unfortunately many years too late, as it isn't fair to send anyone legal back) as the population density directly affects everyone's quality of life and are also not keeping up with medical and educational services as you can't train up professionals fast enough to keep up, let alone build more schools and hospitals etc, and it is also immoral to import professionals as they then remove them from their own countries where they create a further shortage etc, plus if they can't speak English properly they are just a liability.
I would divert many more resources into preventing institutional fraud, as the biggest loss to an economy is false accounting, fraudulent investment practices, interest rate fixing, monopoly power abuse, price fixing, basically whatever the mafia does and most in the public sector. But reduce the public sector and you also reduce the opportunities to spend our money unwisely as it's someone else's so doesn't matter if you drive 500 miles to by a washer in London for the army at a cost of hundreds of pounds rather than go to the local B&Q, and that was not an isolated example but a typical one as that is how the public sector operates. But they are good at one thing, running public services, the ones where you all get the same thing whoever sells it and there is no opportunity for competition as a result. So water, gas, railways, electricity and phones would return to the public sector simply as we all need them and as essentials (the same principle as tax) can't add profit to the prices as they hit the poor the most.
I would also make welfare benefits universal the same way as flat rate tax, as if you do the accounts, by removing the admin and means tests required, the money saved on staff and premises alone would allow everyone claiming benefits to simply request them, provide a medical certificate or P45 or whatever just to prove they can't work, and get it until they can. If they start work the employer just sends a note to the system and takes them off it, and if they want to earn a bit by themselves to top it up they should be encouraged to as it is adding to the economy. It all evens out in the end.
When applying the limited areas of laws, all would be subject to what is reasonable. Therefore if firemen turned up at a pond and wouldn't save a child as none had the correct training, they would all be prosecuted for manslaughter (much as they would in France). No situations where the consequences of the rules were far worse than the problems they were created to prevent would be left, and all such excuses for not doing one's job would become subject to the law of whatever harm was caused as a consequence as they were just as deliberately causing harm as any other criminal.
I would bring back grammar schools, as once they became comprehensive everyone who could afford it sent their clever kids to private schools at a massive cost and the others had to suffer at the soviet style children farms. Just like raising taxes on public services, the poor lost the most, and like it's recently born cousin, degree charges, again creates a situation where all the best poor students are unlikely to fulfil their potential purely as they can't afford a decent school or now a degree either. Education is for all, just as food, water and energy are, and as such there should be no difference in what people earn as to whether they can have these basic needs fulfilled. The rest which are luxuries are what people can spend their money on, so for example everyone ought to be able to afford to drive, and just matter if the rich choose a better car, everyone ought to be able to own a property, but the rich can afford better ones etc. So everyone gets the essentials (assuming the country can afford them at all), or as close as possible, and the rest are up to the individuals to spend their extra earnings on.
Of course if I ruled then anyone attempting to punish the rich by taxing them over 50% would be prevented to do so by statute, as this would go against the entire philosophy of libertarianism and one of the worst areas of social engineering, attempting to interfere with our short lives on earth and effectively steal the fruits of one person's efforts simply to give to others, in fact the state, which in the end becomes lost in the system like most money sent abroad for charity. As for the abominations of positive discrimination it would be treated the same as any other loss from discrimination. Women only quotas would be treated just as harshly as racial quotas- how can a specific number of black or Asian people be any better than guaranteeing a certain quota of white people? It is for a free society to allow everyone the equal chance to rise or fall, and deliberately favouring anyone is deliberately discriminating against everyone else, which is not the state's job to do.
If I think of anything else I'll keep adding it.