Have you considered there might be a reason for that? That kind of "100% personal freedom, no government telling me what to do" libertarianism is impossible nonsense.

It would exist for about three seconds before people realized that there's a hell of a lot of stuff that works much more smoothly/is only possible at all if a bunch of people pool resources together and delegate responsibility to one person or a group of people to manage it. And then bam! you've got a government.

When people say they're libertarians I usually give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that what they mean is "I think the government should be smaller than it is today" and not "I think the government should not exist".

If you really want to exist without being beholden to the government there's plenty of places you could build an isolated cabin in the woods, collect rainwater, grow your own food etc. Or move to some kind of commune.

In video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs

> Have you considered there might be a reason for that? That kind of "100% personal freedom, no government telling me what to do" libertarianism is impossible nonsense.

That's not actually refuting my original point, which was that it's a lot easier to stop dealing with McDonald's than it is to stop dealing with the government.

You're trying to shift the goalposts.

> If you really want to exist without being beholden to the government there's plenty of places you could build an isolated cabin in the woods, collect rainwater, grow your own food etc.

And if I want to exist without being beholden to McDonald's I can just, you know, stop going to McDonald's.

Is your issue with how a government is run or the existence of government?

My issue is that it's ridiculous to even compare the relative level of difficulty between not dealing with a private company and not dealing with the government.