I do have to insert my two cents here. I do believe the definition of Conservative and Liberals are slightly narrow in ratio compared with the scope of libertarian. There are actually eight schools of thoughts on libertarianism. I’d just like to focus on what I believe to be the main two:

1) Libertarian Conservativism… See More
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

2) Left-Libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Though there are some definite differences on between their beliefs on property rights and self-ownership, I will ignore their points and bring it back to your debate between them and the Biblical structure outlined by the Mosaic law.

First Off: Most of the Mosaic Law was created to assist in forming a culture and society that would, through the input of “laws” create a reflection of the image and character of God/Christ. Before the implementation of the Mosaic Law, men of God walked by faith, believe in the Messiah and the forgiveness of their sins - this hasn’t changed in 6000 years, which is why Abraham and Enoc are listed in the “Hall of Faith” in Romans. Their faith applies to us today, and they didn’t even have a bible to read from.

Second: The Mosaic law was created not only to mold and form a God’s chosen race, but also to bring people to the knowledge of sin. We can never uphold it perfectly, no matter how hard we try. Salvation exists through faith alone in the salvation of Jesus Christ, and our “good works” come from a transformed mind as we begin to see the world through the eyes of its Creator.

Libertarians are quite broad and varied in their beliefs, so I’m going to pick on Libertarian Conservatives. Their goal is to keep government small: not stretching to Anarchism, but the attempt is to take the responsibility of social morality and capitalism out of the hands of the federal government and distribute it to the states. In fact, the less restrictions we have on either, the better. I will be the first to admit that this promotes social prejudice and discrimination, and it rightfully should. Social groups will arise that have their own standards, and those individuals that do not meet those standards will be ostracized from their group. This gives those ostracized the freedom to leave and start their own group and start their own societal sect, keeping the initial group free from opposing influences. The theory is, that if a group’s structure is fallible, eventually, their members will dwindle until they are no more, thus promoting the growth of a effective society over a bad one, and keeping those who wish to poison the effective society out through legalized discrimination.

The whole point of this is to have the people be responsible for their morality, no the government, which, should it become corrupted would have no influence over the groups of people beneath it. Its sole purpose should be to protect our borders (military) and international relations. Those are the only purposes our government SHOULD have.

I do claim to be a Libertarian Conservative, so in my philosophical views, this is the best form of government. One that, no matter how corrupt or righteous a government gets, it has no ability to influence the “people” groups it protects, deferring all moral and capitalism decisions to either state or local offices.