I'll also point out that your comments about libertarianism seem to be misguided. Libertarians are the first to defend constitutional rights, because those rights include core, fundamental libertarian tenets, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like seeing them mischaracterized.

unless they are paid to be the local police force.

> If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property.

then they would bring much larger guns.

> I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal.

you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).

It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.

In libertarian land, mass protests against police corruption and abuse occur, the media is not allowed to enter, the protestors are all shot on sight. The end. The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government.

This is why libertarian constitution is designed to be simple and objective, as much as possible. Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. The philosophy also happen to rely on technology to enforce the constitution which rules out subjectiveness/corruption considerably.

Also though there are many variations in libertarianism but none of it will interfere between two consenting adults (such as buying drugs etc). Thus no wars on drugs.

which, as pointed out, is completely hypothetical and additionally defies common sense. burden is on libertarians to prove this extraordinary claim. unfortunately, most non-libertarians don't know/care enough about the whole issue to even demand such proof which is why we are stuck with all this "soft" libertarianism roaming about causing great damage.

Note: "jailtime += 20yrs if skin_color==black" is objective but not libertarian.

- transportation

- health care

- financial system

Run by government guarantees that we get the lowest quality most expensive shittiest solution you ever dream of.

Violates NAP. Cant Happen.

But the state police does have constitution-granted right to confine you for repeatedly violating NAP such as by breaking into people's homes.

Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.

Government = bad, Taxes = theft, is what all their arguments boil down to and you end up going around in a circle.

They don't get that monopoly on use of violence as ultimate arbitration is what allows society to exist in the first place.

"Non aggression principle" LMAO. Look at Somalia and other failed African states. If libertarians weren't socially and economically illiterate, they'd all be flocking to those places, because it's as close to their mystical paradise la-la land as you can possibly get.

I'll also add, your "debate style" is very counter-productive. Even if you loath a belief, the worst thing you can do to change that person's mind is insult them and call their views "la-la land".

Because world has not seen a libertarian government yet.

> Taxes = theft

There are two arguments here. 1. Tax Amount. 2. Consent.

Most of the arugment against taxes from libertarins pov is the amount. Govts does provide a useful service but the pricing is too costly.

A libertarian may immigrate to a favourable country which gives best bang for the buck (for which somalia fails) and in process giving new govt the required consent to make taxation consistent with libertarianism.

> They don't get that monopoly on use of violence as ultimate arbitration is what allows society to exist in the first place.

You are thinking of anarcho-capitalism (a special case of libertarianism nonetheless) which I presume we are not talking about. Then libertarian govt still hold the monopoly on violence and only justifiable in very limited cases.

edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_domi...

> The other major consideration in categorizing warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perceptions of "nation." In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. American historian David G. Herrmann noted, "Warlordism is the default condition of humanity."[5]

So, that's the highly "pure" form of libertarianism discussed in this thread (e.g., no government). A highly libertarian state is by definition very "weak" and we can observe that warlordism rises out of such states (as common sense would suggest in any case). Been there, done that.

Libertarianism in simple terms means emphasis on individualism and removing state from public welfare, education etc. These are the defining characterstics.

In all varitions of libertarianism except ancap, there is a government. It enforces a minimal constitution. Govt employs people such as police to enfoce it. Police are granted liberties that noone else have. Govt will be funded, most likely, with a flat amount "tax" per head.

> If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion).

Why its not coercion ? Because everyone explicitly consent to the constitution/govt. A democracy can only transition to libertarianism if 100% votes yes. Or secede.

That's not really the libertarian mentality. It's closer to something like, any power (or just about any power) in the hands of a state with a legitimate monopoly on violence is unacceptable.

That mentality then manifests itself in policy proposals in a number of ways including decentralized military and police power (states rights, militias, second amendment, etc) as well as limited powers within jurisdictions, especially federal.

I don't know how "Libertarian" came to mean what it does now but it is a very incoherent ideology for exactly the reasons you point out and it probably continues to exist due to powerful interests in the "ruse" you mention too.