Do you support the Death Penalty

[Nym90]

Only in a few cases (such as treason, repeat murderers, etc.) and only with near indisputable evidence, but generally No (D).

Agreed. I voted no since I support a great reduction in its use, but it should be used occasionally, for say serial killers, or those already serving a life sentence who then murder someone else in prison. Also murders that threaten the very sanctity of the entire justice system, such as murder of a police officer, judge, juror, witness, etc.

Its use should be rare enough that it is a major news event.

[Nym90]

There's no requirement in libertarian philosophy that requires a libertarian to support keeping or abolishing the death penalty.

I had been under the impression that the whole point of libertarianism is opposition to the power of the state.
Otherwise what is it but an ideology created to defend the lifestyles of those who follow it?

The whole goal, as I understand it, is a maximization of rights and freedoms.  It seems to me that a case could be made that those who are known to be murderous individuals are both a danger to others' rights and freedoms and undeserving of their own rights and freedoms, having taken those of other people away, and as such, that removing these people from society helps achieve the goal I stated.

A similar justification could be found for allowing the state to imprison people; indeed, if someone supported neither the death penalty nor imprisonment for the reason you gave, that person would be an anarchist, not a simple libertarian.

True, but similar justifications could be made for any expanse of government power. In fact I would argue that the vast majority of government programs actually enhance freedom overall, when one truly considers all people and all possible types of freedom.

Libertarianism as a philosophy seems to focus on the idea that the only source of tyranny and oppression is the government, which is in my opinion its biggest failing.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy of non-aggression against the person and property of individuals. But it is not a political philosophy of non-retaliation. If it were, not merely capital punishment, but imprisonment as well, would be incompatible with it.

Interesting and well put.

The problem with this, however, is that it's a bit simplistic; what exactly constitutes property is very much in debate, for one. For example, what would the libertarian position have been on slavery? Or what about intellectual property such as copyright?

What about things like one's emotions, hopes, fears, dreams, or ambitions? These all could, or could not, be considered property, depending on how one wants to define the term. The entire concept of land as property was, of course, the greatest overall source of conflict in the settlement of the Western world.