Thanks for that, I have emailed you.
Andrew
There are strong foundations for libertarianism in Europe. Over here we usually call it liberalism though (damn you Americans for distoring the language [;)])
The modern liberal tradition was in a sense developed in Britain (Mill, Locke, Hume, Smith etc), and is still visible today - Margaret Thatcher, for instance, admired Freidrich Hayek. A famous incident was when she at a party convention had to listen to politicians speaking of middle-of-the-road policy, become more and more irritated, she pulled out The Constitution of Liberty from her purse and said “THIS is what we believe in!”. Of course you might say that this is an exception to the rule, but so is libertarianism in the US (the LP is minimal, Ron Paul considered a joke, and so on).
The liberal tradition is strong here, of course, mainly outside the universities (where Marxism still is admired, this is also the case in the US I believe), but just look at all the liberal think-tanks, publications, books published. Just to get the picture - take a look at the London-based Stockholm Network, a listing of ovr 110 free-market think-tanks in Europe.
I think, in this case, you have been a little unkind to the Americans. I welcome the label Libertarian in the UK, mostly because there is so much confusion on what exactly a Liberal is, since the party “Social Democrats” were formed after a merging withm what was it? The “Liberal Democrats” I believe.
The Social Democrats are still confused with being Liberals although to my way of thinking they are far to the left of Nu Labour. I know there is a separate and rather small “Liberal Party” consisting of what were true Liberals at that time who refused to amalgamate. But small parties will always find it hard to expand. Mainly because of the king-sized egos many leaders of small parties have. What chance does a small party have to expand if their leader, together with their NEC want to keep their cosy niche?
I think Ron Paul was right to try for the presidentcy this time on a Republican ticket. he will get better results than going in on the Libertarian Party ticket which he did last time. Although I think his success this time can be equally contributed to the fact that it is more relevant for today that it was last time.
I have bookmarked the link, for which I thank you, and shall delve into it and read as much as I can.
I think that my task is going to be very difficult, to write exactly what Libertarianism is in just 2,000 words. However if one cannot do so in such a succinct manner, then it will be more difficult to get the “man in the street” interested. We have all read about the short attention span the average person is purported to possess nowadays.
I have only known that I am a 100% Libertarian for a month, since I took the “small quiz” test. It is no wonder I have been a member of so many parties during my life, looking for the right home. It is this precise reason why I want to try and do something to help other unknown Libertarians to know who they are. But before I can do this I am going to have to spend hundreds of hours of research.
Perhaps I can use this message to thank all those who have tried to help and to wish everyone a 2008 where Ron Paul will finally put us all on the map. He has already done this in America but he has to at least win the Republican nomination before this will filter through to the UK.
Ampers.
I agree with lebear that there is a great tradition of libertarian thought in Europe.
But it is arguable that the origins of this tradition are in Great Britain.
Firstly, we have the Late Spanish Scholastics such as Juan de Mariana (who gives name to one of the most important libertarian think-tanks in Spain: http://www.juandemariana.org), Martín Azpilcueta or Saravia de la Calle to name a few. For example, Mariana defended tyrannicide and criticised the monetary manipulation by the King.
See 'JUAN DE MARIANA AND THE SPANISH SCHOLASTICS’ by Huerta de Soto:
http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/fronts/frontdemariana.htm
Then we have the French Liberal School with Say, Bastiat, Condillac, Molinari… who were mainly advocates of laissez-faire: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/schools/frenchlib.htm
According to Rothbard and some other Austrians, Smith’s influence on economic thought was negative, because he introduced the labor theory of value which denies that value is purely subjective, as some continental europeans thinkers had said.
So, the origins of libertarianism in Europe are not so clear as it seems, and we should pay attention to the Late Spanish Scholastics, who, according to some scholars (Gabriel Calzada, particularly) are the prehistory of the Austrian School.
Of course, there are many roots and you could trace it back even down to the Greeks etc. I just pointed out that the tradition was greatly refined by these British thinkers (and of course others too) - they bridged the gap between previous thinkers and the modern, more sophisticated, era. And I wanted to make the man, who’s from the UK, aware of the fact that in Britain the liberal tradition is strong.
I have only recently equated true Liberalism with Libertarianism, although I do realise the subtle differences of course.
Thanks for that, it is all grist for the mill…
Ampers
Liberalism is rationalistic. It maintains that it is possible to convince the
immense majority that peaceful cooperation within the framework of society
better serves their rightly understood interests than mutual battling and
social disintegration. It has full confidence in man’s reason. It may be that
this optimism is unfounded and that the liberals have erred. But then there
is no hope left for mankind’s future.
I so agree with the last sentence…
Ampers.
That’s a Mises quote. Can be found in the first part of Human Action 
Here’s a short essay by David Boaz from Cato, his book is a pretty good primer for the beginner as well (see the link on the bottom)
Why You Are a Libertarian
by Harry Browne
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/WhyYoureALibertariam.htm
You’re a libertarian because you abhor violence . . .
When a neighbor isn’t willing to contribute as much to a social project as you are, you’d never think of:
Using a gun to force him to contribute;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn’t contribute;
Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn’t contribute — because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don’t comply.
If two people have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:
Using a gun to stop them;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop;
Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.
If a company and an individual have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:
Using a gun to stop them;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop;
Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.
If a foreign government is not attacking America, you’d never support the idea of initiating violence against the foreign country.
As one who abhors violence, you’re willing to tolerate anything that’s peaceful, and you practice the principle of live and let live — opposing the initiation of force (violence) against anyone for any purpose.
That’s why you’re a libertarian.
Libertarianism: Ideology for the Common Man
By
Yes, that is very succinct. Thanks for that, I can use it as an intro.
And Thanks to Allix and others for their contributions. My apologies for not replying to all, but the threading here isn’t perfect and it is difficult for me sometimes.
I think there is enough here for me to research and get my PDF written.
I’ll leave a note here when its done and where it is on the web.
Ampers.
That might help too.