But in general, libertarians combine the strong defense of individual civil liberties, due process, social tolerance (religous, lifestyle choices, etc.), open immigration, and nonconformity espoused by modern day "liberals" with an equally strong defense of free markets, private property, free trade, radically reduced government and international noninterventionism often espoused by conservatives.
In the World's Smallest Political Quiz you can begin to see how this combination arises. The traditional left-right axis between liberal and conservative covers only part of the picture. Essentially both sides want government involved in a good deal of a priavte citizen's life, it's only a question of where. Liberals tend to favor government intervention and planning in economic matters, but leave social issues up to the individual. Conservatives tend to favor government direction of social issues, personal behavior, and "tough on crime" civil liberties intrusions, but leave economics to the private sector. Where does that leave people who want "free speech" AND "less taxes"? Or people who dislike both?
Clearly, a new axis is needed, the libertarian-authoritarian axis. This measures not WHERE you want government intrusion, but WHETHER or HOW MUCH you want government intrustion, not WHERE you want government planning but WHETHER or HOW MUCH you want it. Libertarians believe that people interacting cooperatively through persuasion, mutual respect, tolerance and free trade are the best architects of their society, and that government should only be used for those times when absolutely necessary, to defend against the aggression of those unwilling to leave peacefully with their neighbors. The smaller government gets, the more people are cooperating with one another and the better society is for it.
In 1972, disillusioned Democrats and Republicans, including MIT graduate, David Nolan, founded the Libertarian Party (beginning an MIT tradition that was reaffirmed when LP nominated another MIT graduate, Andre Marrou, for its presidential candidate in 1992). They knew it would be a long term prospect, but they also new quick answers and shortsightedness weren't a solution to anyting as complex as a nation's political direction.
In the last twenty years the LP has found its feet, becoming the United States' third largest political party with affiliates in EVERY state and over 100 elected and appointed public office holders nationwide -- more than any other "third party" since 1914. The history of Libertarian Party milestones includes such things as the year the party became the first to garner an Electoral College vote for a female candidate for US Vice President, years before Geraldine Ferraro.
The Libertarian Party is founded on a strong commitment to principles. These principles are detailed in The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles. Only a 7/8 vote of the membership can alter these idealogical foundations. There are two main documents detailing party positions on the issues:
The LP is set up as a national political party with state and local affiliates. By joining at the the national level, you get party news and information updates for a nominal yearly fee. Join the state affiliate Massachussetts LP to get the local party news, usually at an even smaller fee or for free.
Check with the Massachussetts LP Home Page for the current registration status of the Libertarian Party in this state. Party affiliation during registration usually affects how one may vote in either of the major party "primaries." See the election rules in your state for information.
In states with "public parties," registering to vote as a Libertarian makes you a member automatically. In most cases, there is a party organization or association to collect dues and deliver membership benefits for paying members. If you registered Libertarian you should also join the party organization and become part of the active movement.
An important example of this was the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. Though Clinton won the election, many of the anti-Bush voters cast their votes for Ross Perot instead of Clinton. As a result, he was elected with only a 43% plurality and no real mandate. If those who had wanted to "vote Bush out" had not opted for a third party candidate, Clinton would have come to Washington with much more political support. The Republicans on the other hand, found out the hard way that they cannot be guaranteed all the anti-Democrat votes either. Because only one fifth of the voters went with a candidate they supported even though he had no real chance of winning, massive political shakeups were felt by both parties, drastically altering what either the Democrats or Republicans would be able to do whether they won or lost.