who enforces it?

You can't argue with them.

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.

Well, as an alternative look at North Korea. Just like there are various levels of good governments, there can be good levels of anarchy. Somalia isn't a great example to use here. Furthermore, it has a government, so why would libertarians flock there? What's wrong with having a principle of nonaggression? Why is that worthy of ridicule?

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".

> Government = bad

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.

Police.

this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry. If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion). Random small communities pooling together? (then you have the wealthiest and most powerful citizens owning the police. in other parts of the world these people are called "warlords").

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.

> this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry.

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.