This assumes "libertarian" automatically means what most people tend to refer to as "anarchist".
Anyone who states taxes are stealing as if it is supposed to mean something is fucking stupid outright, and it's not worth arguing with them.
Libertarianism, from my point of view, is about having a world as free from government intervention as possible. Not about reducing the government to nothing and letting people do as they want. It's the governments role to step in anywhere there are market failures, and similar issues. It isn't the governments role to ensure I am being a safe, secure citizen by watching my mail, tracing my actives, and so on. Government should be able to tell me that I cannot buy something that is a danger to only myself.
Nobody think about the fact that the US has banned things like buckyballs or Kinder eggs. It shouldn't. We shouldn't accept that it does. Just as we shouldn't accept the banning of alcohol for minors, of weed for adults, or any drug really.
Goverment should be the entity that funds welfare societies that get people back on their feet, educates people that drugs will hurt them, and sets a standard of who we should be as a citizen. Because, for the government, us being productive is it getting more taxes.
Chief among them is the libertarian notion that self-interest is at the root of all actions, and, for example, working for other people's happiness can be explained away solely as an effort to assuage your conscience.
I find this hilarious, because the entire argument seems to be "of course they are wrong, but you can't disprove them, and you cant make them change their mind by insulting them"
You know, that might indicate a little something. Oh, I don't know, maybe it's correct?
Doing what is good is what is good for us. It makes us feel good. We help other people because it helps us. Does anyone really believe that anyone would form groups, charities, or any of the above if they didn't see more benefit in it than negative?
Every time you ask someone about why they are in charity, I can guarantee you they will say it is hard, but "worth it in the end." That phrase indicates a hell of a lot, IMHO.
Then ask them how they could possibly consider voting in a presidential election. I mean, after all, is the tyranny of 50 per cent plus one any better than the tyranny of one?
Are they not voting for a policy that forces the least ideals on the other groups? That allows people do do what they want free of being forced to? Secondly, in the US at least, our system is specifically designed to protect the minority from the majority, at least in theory.
Don't you think it's incredibly hypocritical of you to vote and give your support to a system that imposes its authority on individuals?
And the alternative? Do not participate and allow the system to go rampant only with those who believe the system should control more?
I do disagree with a lot of libertarian ideas, but this is just one giant fuck-up of an article that very clearly shows that it was designed by a person who is sitting in some form of echo-chamber of save area for their opinions. "I am absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong, you are stupid for having a different opinion!"