Quoted: Those who are governed by God do NOT abuse workers, allow unsafe conditions, or exploit child labor (IF they are following God's rules) . I disagree with that.  I am not governed by "God" though I would say that as a business man, while competitive, I really suck at it because I am too nice.  I have seen a lot of people who go to church 2x a week be nasty assholes.

Hey now - leave church outta this!!!  Church has NOTHING to do with God!


BTW, I consider myself a Christian... which is why I religiously avoid churches.

Quoted: Does a free market mean that one business has the right to go run another business's trucks off the road?  That isn't buying and selling voluntarily.  That's not the free market at work.  That's force. Free market should be adequately defined.  You haven't.

My point exactly.  You are acting with force, which is against the law.

Quoted: I'll agree about the nonsensical, theoretical proposition, though in fairness, you should have spelled it "tehoretical".

Free marketplace means that businesses and individuals are free of coercion and force from other businesses AND from government.  Does that mean that the government is prohibited from keeping one business from killing another through force and coercion?  IMO, no.  IYO, yes.

I think you have that wackbards.  

Turn it around: Does a free market mean that one business has the right to go run another business's trucks off the road?  That isn't buying and selling voluntarily.  That's not the free market at work.  That's force. Free market should be adequately defined.  You haven't.

The free market I beleive in is difficult to define. Its exists in concepts like "fair" "right" "moral" and "decent."

When these standards are violated, gov't MIGHT need to step in. We'd have to take it case by case.

Quoted: Those who are governed by God do NOT abuse workers, allow unsafe conditions, or exploit child labor (IF they are following God's rules) . I disagree with that.  I am not governed by "God" though I would say that as a business man, while competitive, I really suck at it because I am too nice.  I have seen a lot of people who go to church 2x a week be nasty assholes.

Please read more carefully.

I said "IF they are following God's rules" in the VERY post you quite.

elsewhere in this thread I indicated SOME people (like you) don't need the force of gov't to do right.

I've ALSO said we CANNOT base public policy on YOUR level of character.

It MUST be based on the mean average of human behaviour.

Please do not make me re-re-re-re-rerepeat myself.

Quoted: Please do not make me re-re-re-re-rerepeat myself.

sorry-been multi-tasking and had to do a bit of skimming.

A CONCEPT YET UNADDRESSED....

In this thread I've said that public policy CANNOT be based on good Libertarians who do the right thing without the force of gov't.

The fact that you don't need gov't telling you what to do is NOT the basis to decide public policy.

As I've said numerous times, public policy MUST be based on the mean average of human behaviour."

Quoted: The free market I beleive in is difficult to define. Its exists in concepts like "fair" "right" "moral" and "decent." When these standards are violated, gov't MIGHT need to step in. We'd have to take it case by case.

And that's where your/our "principles" fly out the window!!!  It's all that "taking it case by case" crap, instead of paying attention to our Constitution and the PRINCIPLES behind it that got us into this mess!

Quoted: A CONCEPT YET UNADDRESSED.... In this thread I've said that public policy CANNOT be based on good Libertarians who do the right thing without the force of gov't. The fact that you don't need gov't telling you what to do is NOT the basis to decide public policy. As I've said numerous times, public policy MUST be based on the mean average of human behaviour."

You seem to be having a hard time differentiating in your mind between Libertarians and anarchists.

We DO think we need government!...  In order to protect the Liberty of the individual!  If a person, or company, or enemy nation takes some action that limits an individual's Liberty (right to do what he wants without violating another's right to do the same), then a CRIME has been committed and govt should stomp the crap out of the criminal!

Anarchists would leave everybody to fend for themselves,

Quoted: Quoted: The free market I beleive in is difficult to define. Its exists in concepts like "fair" "right" "moral" and "decent." When these standards are violated, gov't MIGHT need to step in. We'd have to take it case by case. And that's where your/our "principles" fly out the window!!!  It's all that "taking it case by case" crap, instead of paying attention to our Constitution and the PRINCIPLES behind it that got us into this mess!

The Constituion was not intended to address every conceivable issue that might arise.

As John Adams said...

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Your statement of using the Constituion and "the principles behind it" makes  my case for me.

It is the immoral and irreligious actions of people who care nothing for the principles behind the Constitution that necessitate additional  gov't intervention.

DO NOT think I am happy about the  neccessity of additional gov't intervention. I lament it loudly.

But it IS necessary, to control the self- absorbed appetittes of the type of people to whom the Constitution is "inadequate."

Quoted: You seem to be having a hard time differentiating in your mind between Libertarians and anarchists. We DO think we need government!...  In order to protect the Liberty of the individual!  If a person, or company, or enemy nation takes some action that limits an individual's Liberty (right to do what he wants without violating another's right to do the same), then a CRIME has been committed and govt should stomp the crap out of the criminal! Anarchists would leave everybody to fend for themselves,

The end result of libetarianism is anarchy.

No rules, everybody "free" to do what they want.

Libertarianism degenerates into anarchy. They are different, but related.

Hey garandman, let me ask you a question from a religious perspective.

If you take away an individual's right to choose between Right and Wrong (Good and Evil) by enforcing laws against drugs and other "victimless crimes", have you not taken away his right/opportunity to choose God's law?  Therefore, isn't the govt essentially attempting to take the place of God?

I think the answer to both questions is YES.

I think the trend toward "legislating morality" has been a big contributor to all the immorality in this country.  Laws against "descrimination" have taklen away societys ability to self-police immoral behavior, and government policies have left people with the general idea that "if it's not illegal, it must be okay"... especially young people.  Look at the Lewinsky deal - most young people thought it was no big deal.  Back when I was in high school (mid 1980's) we would have FREAKED if we heard uncle Ronnie was getting blown in the Oval Office!

Quoted: Hey garandman, let me ask you a question from a religious perspective. !

Two (Three?)   things have to happen before that  -

1. We'll both need orwell84's permission to talk abot God.

2. You'll need to address my John Adams quote

3 .You may need to start another thread, cuz this one isn't primarily religious.

Quoted: Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates the maximization of liberty for every individual. In its ideal sense, this position entails that no individual may act to diminish the liberty of any other individual, so that every individual possesses equal liberty. This is usually taken to mean that each person should be permitted by all other persons (including persons acting on behalf of governments) to act as they please so long as they do not initiate physical force (as distinct from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

As i've said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

Libertarianism is WONDERFUL in theory (aka in dictionary definition)

But I'm not interested in egg head theoretical debate.

I'm trying to talk "real world" Please join me there.

Quoted: Hey garandman, let me ask you a question from a religious perspective. If you take away an individual's right to choose between Right and Wrong (Good and Evil) by enforcing laws against drugs and other "victimless crimes", have you not taken away his right/opportunity to choose God's law?  Therefore, isn't the govt essentially attempting to take the place of God? I think the answer to both questions is YES. !

Quick answer (cuz I'm such a push over)

That thinking would prevent  man from having laws against murder.

Besides, laws don't STOP any behaviour. They only establish a benchmark for punishing behaviour.


Now please address my John Adams quote, and explain how that fits with Libertarian ideals.

Quoted: No rules, everybody "free" to do what they want that doesn't impinge on another's freedom without their consent.

That pesky little rule Mill included when he wrote On Liberty. That one rule is a pretty big one.

Quoted: No, you're just as interested in definitions as I am.  You don't like my definitions which I'm pulling from accepted sources, so you're dismissing it as egghead.  Hence: (standby while I grab it)

Your dictionary definition never exists in reality. Period.

So I'm not interested in discussing it.

Quoted: Quoted: No rules, everybody "free" to do what they want that doesn't impinge on another's freedom without their consent. That pesky little rule Mill included when he wrote On Liberty. That one rule is a pretty big one.

In a society of ten people, that would be easy to administer.

In a  scoiety of 200 million, that's impossible to adminsiter.

Therefore we need a social contract (called "law") that addresses THE MEAN AVERAGE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR.

Example: people in California think they should be "free" to drive by my house in South Carolina WITHOUT hearing the sound of gunfire. Do I need to get their consent? "Free" is a VERY ill defined term these days. Or closer to home - my neighbors for miles around think their air space should be free of  the sounds of gunfire on Saturdays. Do I need to get their consent? What if I can't get their consent? What if theya re afraid of lead in my berm leechinginto the soil and polluting groundwater? They refuse consent. Am I then not free?

YOur plan and policy is just shortsighted and pollyannish in what it requires and anticiaptes in teh complexity of human interaction.

.

Quoted: Quoted: Hey garandman, let me ask you a question from a religious perspective. ! Two (Three?)   things have to happen before that  - 1. We'll both need orwell84's permission to talk abot God. 2. You'll need to address my John Adams quote 3 .You may need to start another thread, cuz this one isn't primarily religious.

Can't  do much for number 1, don't want to bother with number 3.

Number two, on the other hand....

I assume you are talking about the "men who won't be governed by God will be governed by tyrants" quote?  No problem.

I take that to mean that a society that is made up of mostly scumbags who would vote for other scumbags as the "lesser of two evils" or because the one scumbag will bring home more of other people's money to their district, is a society doomed to be ruled by the scumbags they have elected.  Hence, what we have today.

Your take on that quote as I perceive it is this: "men who won't be governed by God SHOULD be governed by tyrants".

The Libertarian idealist in me truly believes that if men were allowed to be truly Free, then society would pretty much police itself.  The cynic in me thinks that sooner or later the scumbags will get elected and screw things up.  But, the idealist in me thinks that the ONLY way to maintain some semblance of Freedom is to constantly strive for the ideal.  

From my standpoint, your "pragmatist" thinking will absolutely lead to all sorts of real honest to God atrocities eventually.  Not at the hands of anarchist mobs, but at the hands of "officials".  I know it's a tired old argument, but it is a fact that all the atrocities the Nazis carried out were absolutley "legal".  Same thing with the millions who lost their lives in Stalin's USSR... and in Mao's China.... etc.  Things like this are extremes, but they all started somewhere, and they were all done "for the good of society" and they were all done "legally".

Anyway, back to the "religious" question???



ETA:  Saw your answer above.  Please readress the question within the limits of Liberty, as I previously defined it.  - meaning laws against "victimless crimes", not murder, rape, robbery etc.

Quoted: Your take on that quote as I perceive it is this: "men who won't be governed by God SHOULD be governed by tyrants".

Not "should" but "must. "For the survival of society.

The Libertarian idealist in me truly believes that if men were allowed to be truly Free, then society would pretty much police itself.

I like the idealism. Reading the daily newspaper quickly takes me back to reality.

The cynic in me thinks that sooner or later the scumbags will get elected and screw things up.

There are FAR FAR more scumbags in society than in gov't. Necessiataing the "tyrant" of gov't.

Anyway, back to the "religious" question???

Answered above.

Quoted: Quoted: You seem to be having a hard time differentiating in your mind between Libertarians and anarchists. We DO think we need government!...  In order to protect the Liberty of the individual!  If a person, or company, or enemy nation takes some action that limits an individual's Liberty (right to do what he wants without violating another's right to do the same), then a CRIME has been committed and govt should stomp the crap out of the criminal! Anarchists would leave everybody to fend for themselves, The end result of libetarianism is anarchy. No rules, everybody "free" to do what they want. Libertarianism degenerates into anarchy. They are different, but related.

In the same context, I'd argue that any thing other than libertarianism will devolve into tyranny.  There is more historical precident to that statement than that libertarianism will turn into anarchy.

In truth, I'd rather flirt with anarchy than tyranny.

Quoted: In the same context, I'd argue that any thing other than libertarianism will devolve into tyranny.  There is more historical precident to that statement than that libertarianism will turn into anarchy.

I'd tend to agree. Tho I'm unaware of any society where pure libertairanism has been tried.

In truth, I'd rather flirt with anarchy than tyranny.

Only because tyranny is the "devil we do know."  You've never experienced anarchy.

In reality, tyranny just is govermental anarchy.

(There's a mind bender for ya)  

Quoted: I assume you are talking about the "men who won't be governed by God will be governed by tyrants" quote?  No problem.

I'm talking about the John Adams quote -

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

It shows the Constituion is unsuited to todays immoral and irreligious society. It presumes the need for additional gov'tal control.

It debunks Libertaranism as a pollyannish ideal.

Please explain how Libertarian "live and let live" jives with Adams wisdom.

Here's my 2 cents.

Liberals = Utopians.  Liberals believe that the world can be made a better place if only ... (whatever).  Liberals do not necessarily believe that the government should be the force used to make whatever change they are envisioning, but they often (usually?) see it as the most direct way to make change.

Some examples of liberal thinking:

1) The world would be a better place if everyone just held hands.  So some liberals got together and organized Hands Across America.

2) An advanced nation shouldn't let people starve.  Create welfare, social security, and other programs so people never have to worry about being poor.

3) How to promote the cause of peace and understanding among nations.  Let's create a pan-national organization that has the power to enforce the cause of peace and human rights (the U.N.).

4) There are a lot of murders in our country where people use guns.  If we would just outlaw guns, there would be no more murders.

Conservatives = Pragmatists.  Conservatives believe that the world operates in a state of equilibrium that barely maintains stability.  A conservative would generally agree with the quote (paraphrased) "democracy is the worst form of government ever invented, except for all the other ones", but would extend that to other institutions as well.  Basically, conservatives believe that the world we live in is imperfect, will never be perfect, but that wholesale changes are much more likely to cause harm than good.

Some examples of conservative thinking:

1) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  If we allow gay marriage, it undermines the entire institution.

2) The constitution should be interpreted as literally as possible.  Change to that interpretation should only be made excplicitly through the amendment process.

3) One of our country's basic principles is the right of the citizenry to arm themselves in case they ever have the need to defend themselves against others or, in the worst case, against the government.  Any gun regulation is a step down the slippery slope of taking away all gun rights.

4) As the world globalizes, we may need a forum to get together and discuss things with other countries.  The U.N. provides a useful forum for discussion, but we have no/little interest in compromising when we disagree with the General Assembly or Security Council.

Libertarians = Interesting combination of both.  Libertarians are similar to liberals, in that they believe wholesale change could make the world a better place.  However, the change they want is based on conservative values:  let's go back to a time when the government's role in our lives, business, etc. was a lot smaller.

Conclusion:  I've clearly over-simplified the arguments, but hopefully, you get the idea.  Also, I believe I am smack-dab in the middle between liberal and conservative so any bias you see in the examples I chose should be accidental.  (That is, there is no example above that I totally agree with, and no example that I totally disagree with.)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No rules, everybody "free" to do what they want that doesn't impinge on another's freedom without their consent. That pesky little rule Mill included when he wrote On Liberty. That one rule is a pretty big one. In a society of ten people, that would be easy to administer. In a  scoiety of 200 million, that's impossible to adminsiter. Therefore we need a social contract (called "law") that addresses THE MEAN AVERAGE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. Example: people in California think they should be "free" to drive by my house in South Carolina WITHOUT hearing the sound of gunfire. Do I need to get their consent? "Free" is a VERY ill defined term these days. Or closer to home - my neighbors for miles around think their air space should be free of  the sounds of gunfire on Saturdays. Do I need to get their consent? What if I can't get their consent? What if theya re afraid of lead in my berm leechinginto the soil and polluting groundwater? They refuse consent. Am I then not free? YOur plan and policy is just shortsighted and pollyannish in what it requires and anticiaptes in teh complexity of human interaction.

Mill would be very upset with you. "Free" is defined within his essay. The freedom you're thinking of is the same as a lib's idea to limit free speech because everyone has a right to be "free" of offensive ideas.

Mill defined freedom within On Liberty as a person's volition, his freedom of choice to do what he pleased, how he pleased, when he pleased, as long as it doesn't impinge on another's ability to do likewise without his consent.

Your example, if the Cali folk chose to drive by your house and personal range despite alternative routes or ear plugs, no one is harmed. Likewise, if you choose to cease fire to their request, no one is harmed. If the Cali folk forcibly stop you from enjoying your private range, they are violating your liberty. If you force the Cali folk to march around your private range, you are violating their liberty.

As per your neighbors, if you and your neighbors cannot agree, then circumstances call for some innovation to occur. Gotta love a free market filling in a void, right? So you could build a supressor. Oh snap, the gov't already stepped in and violated your liberty. Gotta hate that intrusive gov't, right? In lieu of this, raising a berm around the shooting line could work. Or come to compromise for arranging shcedules. Your situation is not without solution between you and your neighbors. The libertarian in me says that the gov't should not have to get involved here. The minute you point your gun at your neighbor or your neighbor bulldozes your private range, the gov't can step in. There are laws in a liberterian world. They are merely rooted in the ideals of libertarianism and that is minimal gov't and maximum personal liberties. The gov't works where it absolutely has to and individuals pick up the slack. Free market dynamics will solve for the greedy and lazy as you like to call them.

I'm forumlating something for your challenge of John Adam's saying. I'll let you know when I got something to run with.

The schenanigans with calling things pollyannish is getting mighty old. At least use a thesaurus to find some synonyms to spice up your posts. Naive, silly, simplistic, myopic, short-sighted, half-baked, et al. That's what my English teacher in high school would say.

Quoted: ...Your example, if the Cali folk chose to drive by your house and personal range despite alternative routes or ear plugs, no one is harmed. Likewise, if you choose to cease fire to their request, no one is harmed. If the Cali folk forcibly stop you from enjoying your private range, they are violating your liberty. If you force the Cali folk to march around your private range, you are violating their liberty... ...The libertarian in me says that the gov't should not have to get involved here. The minute you point your gun at your neighbor or your neighbor bulldozes your private range, the gov't can step in...

Why shouldn't the government get involved?  The non-libertarian in me thinks that its great if you can come to some accomodation with others, but that the fundamental role of government is to mediate where people's rights come in conflict -- when they are unable to settle the situation themselves, that is.  (Note that, more often than not issues like this are settled in a friendly manner between neighbors.  There comes a point, though, where someone has to mediate.)

Your statement that government shouldn't get involved merely sets a default based on circumstances.  Without government involvement, the people driving by have no way to influence the property owner, so he has no reason to negotiate anything, even though by your description both parties have valid arguments.  Why should such a dispute be settled in that manner?  Why not set a standard whereby a certain amount of noise emanating from a property is allowed and a certain amount is not allowed?  Otherwise the winner is whoever has the position where they can say "even though we each have a valid position, you can't stop me, so I win."

What if there were no laws regarding slander.  I have the right of free speech, you have the right not to be slandered.  Then I slander you.  If there's no law, I can keep slandering you with no repurcussions.  My right trumps yours merely because you can't stop me without resorting to violence (which, presumably in this example, is still illegal).

EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying that the government should shut down the personal range.  Maybe the regulation that is promulgated allows shooting at certain times of day.  Maybe the legislation favors property rights over noise pollution.  Maybe the legislation requires binding third-party arbitration.  Maybe the local municipality decides to build a berm between your property and the public road.  There's a lot of different ways government could address this type of issue, but leaving it up to chance (the winner being whoever happens to have the "try and stop me" position) doesn't seem like useful public policy.

I'd tend to agree. Tho I'm unaware of any society where pure libertairanism has been tried.

Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a form of government.  There is no such thing as a libertarianist regime or "pure libertarianism".  Its like saying "I'm unaware of any society where pure conservatism has been tried".  What would that even mean?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, you're just as interested in definitions as I am.  You don't like my definitions which I'm pulling from accepted sources, so you're dismissing it as egghead.  Hence: (standby while I grab it) Your dictionary definition never exists in reality. Period. So I'm not interested in discussing it. Are you saying words don't mean anything in reality?

Of course words mean things.

I'm saying libertarianism is purely conceptional, and isn't anywhere practiced in reality.

I live in the real world. Since libertarianism has never  and will never be practiced in the real world, why discuss it as if it were a solution for today IN THE REAL WORLD?

Quoted: Quoted: In reality, tyranny just is govermental anarchy. (There's a mind bender for ya)   Do you just enjoy stringing together contradictory concepts and expecting us to figure you for a deep thinker?

Think about it.

Tyranny is rampant governmental abuse of power.

Anarchy is chaos.

Therefore, tyranny is governmental anarchy - the gov't acting in a state of chaos, abusing tis power.

Try to keep up, will ya??   Or stay on the porch.  



.

Quoted: I'd tend to agree. Tho I'm unaware of any society where pure libertairanism has been tried. Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a form of government.  There is no such thing as a libertarianist regime or "pure libertarianism".  Its like saying "I'm unaware of any society where pure conservatism has been tried".  What would that even mean?

Conservatism and liberalism HAVE both been practiced here in the US. Conservatism up until the early 1950's, liberalism since.

Libertarianism has never been tried anywhere. Libertarianism tries to create a vacuum of power, and human nature ALWAYS tries to take advantage of a vacuum of power.

Libertarianism CANNOT exist.

Quoted: Libertarianism has never been tried anywhere. Libertarianism tries to create a vacuum of power, and human nature ALWAYS tries to take advantage of a vacuum of power. Libertarianism CANNOT exist.

So how can you say 100% that it cannot exist if it hasn't been tried?

Quoted: You keep saying that.  You've said it degenerates into anarchism.  How? .

its very simple.



"LIve and let live" creates an atmosphere of everybody does whatever they want. Initially it starts off with disallowing that which doesn't harm anyone else.

If you know even a shred of history, you know that never lasts.

As the abuses start, the free wheeling nature of libetarianism is WHOLLY incapable of dealing with the abuses as its ENTIRE basis is minimalized law.

Chaos  ensues.

Anarchy results.

Quoted: Anarchy has been defined at its simplest as an absence of government, and more complexely, chaos caused by the absence of government. ]

Anarchy is, in a very real sense,  the absense of the proper role of gov't.

The proper role of gov't is limited gov't.

Tyranny is also the absense of the proper role of gov't, limitless gov't if you will.

Thus tyranny is governmental anarchy.

yes, I am asking you to think outside the gov't school education you received at taxpayer expense.

Quoted: ETA, if Libertarianism has never been tried as a government policy, there is no history to look up.

Libertarisnism tries to create a vacuum of power.

Power abhors a vacuum.

Thus, libertarianism is a wonderfully utopian, pollyannish idealistic but irrelevant for the real world philosophy that cannot exist for very long at all.

We're just going round in circles now, so I think I'm gonna leave it at this....

EVERY study known to man has shown that intoxicants (alcohol and drugs)  play a significant role in murder, rape, incest, manslaughter, child abuse, spousal abuse and a host of other societal ills.

The libertarian wants to make these intoxicants more readily available to all, and thereby those least responsible of handling them in a proper manner.

Anyone with a brain could see that this weill lead to MORE murder, rape, incest, child abuse, etc.

The libertarian ideal would simultaneously have neutered gov't to the point of being incapable of dealing with not only with drug and alcohol abuse, but 1,000 other abuses. Society spirals downward, and out of control to the point everyone does whatever they want, and no one can do anything about it.

Yeah, yeah, I already realize the following fact -

Pollyannish libertarians, uneducated on the destructive tendancies of human nature, unwilling to confront them appropriately, will NEVER come to understand the hell they have created UNTIL -  

...it is THEIR wife and children lying on a cement slab, killed by a 16 yo pot smoker behind the wheel of a car.

But then it will be too late. Then pollyanna will FINALLY grow up.

Alone.

So you are saying that if we were to turn this abusive government into a more libertarian form, it would be bad, because people would have too much freedom and since there is going to be all of this evil freedom going on, someone is going to take advanage of it and turn all this freedom into something that is tyranical.  I am sorry but it doesn't make sense.  You are still thinking that libertarianism=anarchy which is simply not the case.

Quoted: Pollyannish libertarians, uneducated on the destructive tendancies of human nature, unwilling to confront them appropriately, will NEVER come to understand the hell they have created UNTIL -   ...it is THEIR wife and children lying on a cement slab, killed by a 16 yo pot smoker behind the wheel of a car. But then it will be too late. Then pollyanna will FINALLY grow up. Alone.

That VERY same arguement is one advocated by the gun grabbers.  [sarabrady]Wait until someone kills YOUR family with a gun because you see it is the guns fault, not the individual[/sarabrady]  

grarandman:  Do you realize just how many people smoke pot?  I think the number would really surprise you.  A large chunk are responsibly adults, who have strong concervative values.  Dumb cellphone using SOBER teenagers cause more traffic crashes than drivers driving stoned.

Quoted: That VERY same arguement is one advocated by the gun grabbers.  [sarabrady]Wait until someone kills YOUR family with a gun because you see it is the guns fault, not the individual[/sarabrady]

Which is why the Second Amendment exists.

Still no one has addressed the John Adams quote -

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

It wholly debunks the pipe dream called libertarianism.

Quoted: You are still thinking that libertarianism=anarchy which is simply not the case.

it doesn't in theory, but it will in practice.