What is Libertarian?

[Contumacious]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

That is correct.

When Patrick Henry demanded Liberty or death he was just joshing,

.

 

[bripat9643]

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

Latinity
Calvinism
material scarcity and
slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

More at Frum Forum

Sorry, but your definition of "honor" is ridiculous.

To understand the concept of honor, I recommend Mencken's famous comment:

"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."​

You obviously believe honor means getting away with your indiscretions. That is the liberal definition, at any rate.

There is nothing incompatible between libertarianism and honor.

 

[Bern80]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

So the issue to you is that because they allowed slavery they were not libertarian? People are not an ideology Jake. Just because Bill Clinton cheated on his wife doesn't mean he wasn't a democrat.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

Latinity
Calvinism
material scarcity and
slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

More at Frum Forum

Sorry, but your definition of "honor" is ridiculous.

To understand the concept of honor, I recommend Mencken's famous comment:

"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."​

You obviously believe honor means getting away with your indiscretions. That is the liberal definition, at any rate.

There is nothing incompatible between libertarianism and honor.

NO you little weasel, YOU are the one who forwarded YOUR own definition and now you are trying to stick it on me...It only reveals YOUR morals and honor, not mine.


The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.
Edmund Burke

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Recieving "the esteem of the wise and good" is NOT antithetical to .."I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine". You're confusing the opportunity to serve others with the moral imperative to serve others..

Every community needs a good baker willing to get up at the crack of dawn and put food on people's tables. He could be held in HIGH "esteem of the wise and good" even if he was the most self-centered SOB in the village.. In HIS view -- he is serving others by focusing on his own well-being..

 

[The Rabbi]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

Name one thing the founders did that wasn't libertarian. They clearly were, they just didn't use that term.

No, they very clearly were not narco-libertarians. They retained to the states all the restrictions we have seen the Supreme Court strike down over the last 50+ years. They objected to strong power in the central government. But they did not object to government coercing people per se.

 

[Contumacious]

Conty, is it true you have a picture of Baby Boy Burke on your wall at home?

HUH?

What the fuck happened?

Do you sense that you are not impressing anyone with your Marxist Philosophy?

.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

Latinity
Calvinism
material scarcity and
slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

More at Frum Forum

And this is the second time you have posted that citation. As before, you still refuse to understand what Rand meant with that statement as it espouses honor. Maybe you should actually try reading the context that it was placed in. Are you putting fourth that Rand portrayed Galt as someone without honor? You apparently missed the entire point that she was attempting to make. It does not surprise me though as someone that believes strongly in the opposing POV.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

Latinity
Calvinism
material scarcity and
slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

More at Frum Forum

And this is the second time you have posted that citation. As before, you still refuse to understand what Rand meant with that statement as it espouses honor. Maybe you should actually try reading the context that it was placed in. Are you putting fourth that Rand portrayed Galt as someone without honor? You apparently missed the entire point that she was attempting to make. It does not surprise me though as someone that believes strongly in the opposing POV.

This is the second time I have posted an excerpt from the article from the website of George W. Bush's former speechwriter. But they are different excerpts.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

More

 

[bripat9643]

This is the second time I have posted an excerpt from the article from the website of George W. Bush's former speechwriter. But they are different excerpts.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

More

what a load of horseshit. Left wingers makeup slanders and lies and then repeat them over and over and over. I've been seeing this claim for at least 10 years now.

Jennifer Burns is a scumbag. Why should anyone believe what she says?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty, is it true you have a picture of Baby Boy Burke on your wall at home?

HUH?

What the fuck happened?

Do you sense that you are not impressing anyone with your Marxist Philosophy?

.

If Baby Boy Burke is a marxist, then that is news to me.

You are nothing but a left-wing social libertarian. You don't fool anyone.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the second time I have posted an excerpt from the article from the website of George W. Bush's former speechwriter. But they are different excerpts.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

More

what a load of horseshit. Left wingers makeup slanders and lies and then repeat them over and over and over. I've been seeing this claim for at least 10 years now.

Jennifer Burns is a scumbag. Why should anyone believe what she says?

I think you fail to properly zero in on what is happening here.

Ayn Rand was a bane to old style conservatism in her professed devout Atheism, in her pro choice convictions even before that became a political issue, in her opposition to Eisenhower and Reagan who weren't laissez-faire enough for her and a staunch supporter of Nixon because he wanted to abolish the draft. I have read that she actually mentored Alan Greenspan who, teamed up with Milton Friedman, drafted the argument that led to our present all volunteer army.

She, like all people, was neither all saint nor all sinner. She at times promoted concepts that merit criticism and dissection and at times was brilliant in the theories she wove into her writings. And now, the pendulum has swung to bring her in favor with freedom loving fiscal conservatives, which she was, and therefore the left must take her down.

For instance, to assign assumed intent about her opinions about Hickman from a few disconnected lines in her diary--she frequently made notations re people that she would possibly use for purposes of character development in a future novel--I think is a typical leftwing looney demonization tactic to minimalize her. Everybody they disagree with must of course be destroyed.

Donald Luskin has perhaps researched Rand more than any other, and he writes of her:

Rand was not a conservative or a liberal: She was an individualist. "Atlas Shrugged" is, at its heart, a plea for the most fundamental American ideal—the inalienable rights of the individual. On tax day, with our tax dollars going to big government and subsidies for big business, let's remember it's the celebration of individualism that has kept "Atlas Shrugged" among the best-selling novels of all time.

Wouldn't it be nice to develop grown up tolerance that allows us to accept people as human beings who will naturally be wrong about some things and very right about others?

 

[Bfgrn]

This is the second time I have posted an excerpt from the article from the website of George W. Bush's former speechwriter. But they are different excerpts.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

More

what a load of horseshit. Left wingers makeup slanders and lies and then repeat them over and over and over. I've been seeing this claim for at least 10 years now.

Jennifer Burns is a scumbag. Why should anyone believe what she says?

I think you fail to properly zero in on what is happening here.

Ayn Rand was a bane to old style conservatism in her professed devout Atheism, in her pro choice convictions even before that became a political issue, in her opposition to Eisenhower and Reagan who weren't laissez-faire enough for her and a staunch supporter of Nixon because he wanted to abolish the draft. I have read that she actually mentored Alan Greenspan who, teamed up with Milton Friedman, drafted the argument that led to our present all volunteer army.

She, like all people, was neither all saint nor all sinner. She at times promoted concepts that merit criticism and dissection and at times was brilliant in the theories she wove into her writings. And now, the pendulum has swung to bring her in favor with freedom loving fiscal conservatives, which she was, and therefore the left must take her down.

For instance, to assign assumed intent about her opinions about Hickman from a few disconnected lines in her diary--she frequently made notations re people that she would possibly use for purposes of character development in a future novel--I think is a typical leftwing looney demonization tactic to minimalize her. Everybody they disagree with must of course be destroyed.

Donald Luskin has perhaps researched Rand more than any other, and he writes of her:

Rand was not a conservative or a liberal: She was an individualist. "Atlas Shrugged" is, at its heart, a plea for the most fundamental American ideal—the inalienable rights of the individual. On tax day, with our tax dollars going to big government and subsidies for big business, let's remember it's the celebration of individualism that has kept "Atlas Shrugged" among the best-selling novels of all time.

Wouldn't it be nice to develop grown up tolerance that allows us to accept people as human beings who will naturally be wrong about some things and very right about others?

Liberals are tolerant to a fault and we don't look to take down anyone. But when we see a cult develop that threatens the fabric of our society, we speak out. You confuse tolerance with conformity. Conformity is at the very core of conservatism.

What I see going on with conservationism has been noticed by enlightened conservatives like John Dean and Victor Gold...

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

 

[Contumacious]

what a load of horseshit. Left wingers makeup slanders and lies and then repeat them over and over and over. I've been seeing this claim for at least 10 years now.

Jennifer Burns is a scumbag. Why should anyone believe what she says?

I think you fail to properly zero in on what is happening here.

Ayn Rand was a bane to old style conservatism in her professed devout Atheism, in her pro choice convictions even before that became a political issue, in her opposition to Eisenhower and Reagan who weren't laissez-faire enough for her and a staunch supporter of Nixon because he wanted to abolish the draft. I have read that she actually mentored Alan Greenspan who, teamed up with Milton Friedman, drafted the argument that led to our present all volunteer army.

She, like all people, was neither all saint nor all sinner. She at times promoted concepts that merit criticism and dissection and at times was brilliant in the theories she wove into her writings. And now, the pendulum has swung to bring her in favor with freedom loving fiscal conservatives, which she was, and therefore the left must take her down.

For instance, to assign assumed intent about her opinions about Hickman from a few disconnected lines in her diary--she frequently made notations re people that she would possibly use for purposes of character development in a future novel--I think is a typical leftwing looney demonization tactic to minimalize her. Everybody they disagree with must of course be destroyed.

Donald Luskin has perhaps researched Rand more than any other, and he writes of her:

Rand was not a conservative or a liberal: She was an individualist. "Atlas Shrugged" is, at its heart, a plea for the most fundamental American ideal—the inalienable rights of the individual. On tax day, with our tax dollars going to big government and subsidies for big business, let's remember it's the celebration of individualism that has kept "Atlas Shrugged" among the best-selling novels of all time.

Wouldn't it be nice to develop grown up tolerance that allows us to accept people as human beings who will naturally be wrong about some things and very right about others?

Liberals are tolerant to a fault and we don't look to take down anyone. But when we see a cult develop that threatens the fabric of our society, we speak out. You confuse tolerance with conformity. Conformity is at the very core of conservatism.

What I see going on with conservationism has been noticed by enlightened conservatives like John Dean and Victor Gold...

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

The modern fascist is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for tyranny.

Murray Newton Rothbard

.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:

Liberals are tolerant to a fault and we don't look to take down anyone. But when we see a cult develop that threatens the fabric of our society, we speak out. You confuse tolerance with conformity. Conformity is at the very core of conservatism.

Please don't make me ROFL over the concept of you being a Liberal? That would make us related and I'd be bummed. Maybe you could give me a little Liberal performance art about "individual sovereinty or a healthy distrust of powerful government..

As far as Ayn Rand goes -- that's just 'tarded. Ayn Rand took EVERY opportunity to just baste the nascent Libertarian Party. She hated the idea. And repeatedly chastized them for "not being judgemental enough". Was she actually correct? I'm not certain. Since one can support liberty and choices for those whose actions one despises. Ain't that - the classical Liberal definition of tolerance?

Or is it that you have personally SUPPORT every cause that you "allow" to exist politically? Both DEMS and REPS are too vested in "becoming one" with their supported social causes. Rather than examining the proper role of the state in those causes.

And since when has studying serial killers for fictional literary development become a crime Bfgrn? Have you complained to

[ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/very-best-Serial-Killer-novels/lm/1EV32COT0QBW8[/ame] ... those authors yet???

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think you fail to properly zero in on what is happening here.

Ayn Rand was a bane to old style conservatism in her professed devout Atheism, in her pro choice convictions even before that became a political issue, in her opposition to Eisenhower and Reagan who weren't laissez-faire enough for her and a staunch supporter of Nixon because he wanted to abolish the draft. I have read that she actually mentored Alan Greenspan who, teamed up with Milton Friedman, drafted the argument that led to our present all volunteer army.

She, like all people, was neither all saint nor all sinner. She at times promoted concepts that merit criticism and dissection and at times was brilliant in the theories she wove into her writings. And now, the pendulum has swung to bring her in favor with freedom loving fiscal conservatives, which she was, and therefore the left must take her down.

For instance, to assign assumed intent about her opinions about Hickman from a few disconnected lines in her diary--she frequently made notations re people that she would possibly use for purposes of character development in a future novel--I think is a typical leftwing looney demonization tactic to minimalize her. Everybody they disagree with must of course be destroyed.

Donald Luskin has perhaps researched Rand more than any other, and he writes of her:


Wouldn't it be nice to develop grown up tolerance that allows us to accept people as human beings who will naturally be wrong about some things and very right about others?

Liberals are tolerant to a fault and we don't look to take down anyone. But when we see a cult develop that threatens the fabric of our society, we speak out. You confuse tolerance with conformity. Conformity is at the very core of conservatism.

What I see going on with conservationism has been noticed by enlightened conservatives like John Dean and Victor Gold...

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

The modern fascist is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for tyranny.

Murray Newton Rothbard

.

And you are not searching for moral justification for your desires independent of social restraint, Conty? You are so confused.

 

[oracle]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

When you put it like that, it sounds....even more unrealistic than it actually is. Libertarians want all the perks, with none of the drawbacks. Live and let live. HA! They would tow that line of B.S. until disaster strikes, then they become socialists and communists, because all of those people that they "LET LIVE" will now be assholes if they don't help. Keep in mind live and let live means, you're on your own, come hell or high water. You want to go back to the frontier days when, if your house caught fire, it meant three people running around with buckets of water? Libertarians believe in no taxes whatsoever, so how do we fix infrastructure? Who are the police? Where's the fire department? where's our military? our schools? Libertarians in my opinion (based partly on the average age of those who brandish the label proudly) are nothing more than tree hugging hippies, with a very weak grasp on reality.

 

[onecut39]

Sex n drugs n rock n roll.

Libertarianism is a second cousin to communism by way of anarchism.

Scratch a Libertarian, you get an anarchist.

 

[dblack]

When you put it like that, it sounds....even more unrealistic than it actually is. Libertarians want all the perks, with none of the drawbacks. Live and let live. HA! They would tow that line of B.S. until disaster strikes, then they become socialists and communists, because all of those people that they "LET LIVE" will now be assholes if they don't help. Keep in mind live and let live means, you're on your own, come hell or high water. You want to go back to the frontier days when, if your house caught fire, it meant three people running around with buckets of water? Libertarians believe in no taxes whatsoever, so how do we fix infrastructure? Who are the police? Where's the fire department? where's our military? our schools? Libertarians in my opinion (based partly on the average age of those who brandish the label proudly) are nothing more than tree hugging hippies, with a very weak grasp on reality.

You've built up quite a caricature of a libertarian there. It's wrong in too many ways to really get into. But I am curious at your derision of the idea of live-and-let-live. Why does it bother you? "Live-and-let-live" doesn't meant "you're on your own, come hell or high water". You're assuming, as many do, that libertarians' aversion to coercive state programs equates to a disdain for community action, which it doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The idea of a "society of free individuals" sounds as great as "a classless society." Libertarianism and communism are unobtainable. Why? Man is flawed, and coercion is part of social structure. Those are the basic facts of humanity and his/her organization socially.