It boils down to the fact that government is simply an abandonment of personal responsibility on the faulty assumption that there are people, other than ourselves, who really know how to manage things and make our decisions for us. But government becomes a self-serving corporation and proliferates laws of ever increasing complexity and stupidity to keep control of the situation. These laws are enforced with the barrel of a gun of course. Mao claimed that all government flowed from the barrel of a gun.

Those who mistrust themselves and others are doomed to pain and suffering over and over.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and the people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life. (Lao Tzu)

Note: This did work dramatically in one period in China. It is not as if evidence is not available.

Macgupta claimed that he would much rather pay taxes and support a murderous empire than live like the folks in Iceland in the medieval times. He says that life was not perfect there! No shit?

The Icelandic Icelandic Free State (or commonwealth) which existed between 930 and 1262, offers us all a well-documented, real world example of how a market anarchist political system worked in the past. No one said it was perfect. No one said that the model would work perfectly for 300 million Americans --- maybe no society should ever be that large. Maybe humans can improve the model given 800 years progress.

If only we can disabuse ourselves of Frances Fukuyama's delusion that Western liberal democracy is the final form of human government we might be able to look to solutions to some of the problems of the modern age.

The read question is: how is this democracy thing working out now? Glenn Greenwald documents almost every day (and sometimes more that once a day) that it is failing. Shall you "elect better democrats"? We have been trying that for a couple of centuries now; and it just does not seem to get us there.

My God. What utter ignorance.

von Mises and Rothbard were not libertarians? Do you even know Rothbard?

I'll be damed. The race card queen came out to claim it knows about freedom. What a hoot!

As long as you are posting; have you taken that logic course in college yet? We have been waiting a while now for the answer to that.

Well that ain't gonna happen in your lifetime. It is bad enough that collectivists of all stripes stole the label "liberal" in the first place; and now government lovers want to be the only libertarians. Pashaw!

If one wants the greatest freedom for the maximum number of humans: the state is certainly not the way to go. (notice I did not say safety)

However, it is late in the east and I work for a living. Perhaps I'll do a piece on your idea of libertarianism tomorrow.

So? It seemed as if you were going to make a point, but stopped just short of doing so.

I hate to guess, but since I must be off soon I'll guess that you (and please correct me if I am mistaken) wanted to make the point that an uneven distribution of power is the very reason that governments are needed. So they can have it all?

Friedrich Hayek(*) addressed what he called the "fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces" but he was lambasting conservatives at that moment and not my fine progressive friends at Salon. (although, progressives caught hell in that essay also)

I am for civilization. I am for the spontaneous arising of culture and voluntary cooperation. Take a look at medieval Iceland and tell me that they needed a government and were worse off for not having one.

(*) I pick Hayek, only to honor Mona as she seemed to think only Hayek was a libertarian for some reason.

Same one as you do. There is no anarchy in the world today; no place at all that is beyond the reach of government. There have been a few blessed lands in times past, but I live in modern America.

Say, how is this government thing working out for you and your fellow citizens? You live in a democracy, right? You must be living in a paradise.

Which proves that we travel in different circles. So? I was responding to the absurd notion that one could be one or the other and not both at the same time.

It is well known that some libertarians still hold to the idea(*) that some government somewhere in time and space can be held small and under control. The arguments over that issue are legendary.

I am with the libertarian that said that the government that governs least governs best and that government which governs not at all governs perfectly. :)

----
(*) And apparently these people are prepared to wait till the sun explodes looking for a government that can be kept small and in service of the people. Waiting for Godot comes to mind.

They just can't get you meds right. Oh well.

Most libertarians that I know are anarchists. I see no conflict at all. I am surprised that you pretend not to know about anarcho-capitalists. And you missed one; I answer to Classic Liberal also since that is libertarianism by another name.

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism