The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
* individual liberty and personal responsibility
* a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
* a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
A fairly cursory study of American history will show you that our founding fathers generally intended our government to be established for a single (yet binary) purpose: to protect the people from threats (foreign or domestic).
There's a very long list of things that the government was never originally intended to regulate or otherwise be involved with (public education being a primary example), and most of these things it does quite a poor job at (naturally).
The issue is where the line is to be drawn. Take smoking in bars - no longer legal in California or Manhattan (and likely other places, as well, by now). Should the government be able to tell you what your patrons can and can't do in your establishment? Every time I pass people huddled outside a bar door, getting their drags, I have to chuckle at the ludicrous level to which governance-gone-wild has spun to. Here's a legal activity, but don't do it inside. Ok.
Seat belt (and motorcycle helmet) laws are another one. If I choose not to use it, shouldn't it be my choice? I have to say that I pretty much agree with this guy on principle, although I don't necessarily practice his systematic protestation with the same dedication that he apparently did.
There are certain things that the government should be involved in. Its my belief that the list of those things is far shorter than the average American would argue for, if pressed to think about it. And that list is essentially based on a corporate mind-set that government itself plays a large part in establishing. Government continues to overstep its bounds because of our perpetual gross misunderstanding of its nature (or, more particularly, what its nature should be).
Its been happening since at least the time of Saul, and I don't see it changing any time soon.