Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.
Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.
It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.
Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?
I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).
Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this:
If so, I would have to say it is a misconception you have if you think that is something which libertarian law approves of, to engage in war, just because it is a private subcontractor doing it.
Also, if this part from a wikipedia entry is what you are talking about, pay attention to who it is in power who forgives MM:
>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.
Yes, that is exactly the section of which I was thinking.
I didn't intend my comment to mean that libertarian law approves of mercenaries or for-hire militaries (honestly, I'm not sure what "libertarian" law's stance on the topic is). I merely meant it as illustrative of the inherent problems associated with mercenaries, privateers, and rogue for-hire military forces to the body politic - that these forces owe their loyalty not necessarily to the nation, but to the highest bidder.
And, M&M Enterprises was not exactly a private subcontractor, as I understand it, but an international cooperative of soldiers who switched loyalty from their respective national forces to the cooperative for their own mutual benefit.
I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.