consentist

People want what they were promised. Career politicians were not giving. They elected someone else instead.

Reality is Trump or anyone else wont be able to deliver. I think It all started when democracy transitioned from model of governence to model of public welfare. Then you had some who demanded something else in return (crony capitalism, certain laws), some outsourced jobs to favourable countries and some just immigrated. A shitty mess really.

People will have to further dial down their expectations from democracy/government.

> 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.

> 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.

Police.

> NAP by definition is an ethical stance.

Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.

My claim is: highly objective criminal-code/constitution ==> low corruption. Do you disagree with this ? Any couter examples.

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

> ... hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into

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.

> 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.