Frankly, there is no way anyone can have the kind of absolute freedom libertarian philosophy seems to insist upon. Do you want the freedom to kill yourself by mistake? I’m being serious. Among those “intrusions” of government are health and safety codes. By any standard they restrict freedom, but it would be insane and dangerous NOT to have them! Its not that people have no sense of survival, but if drunk driving rates are anything to go by then it seems people are quite prone to stupidity. It only takes one person’s absent minded mistake to kill five.

And then there is corporate greed: where you fear government, I see them as the REAL threat, and for much the same reasons. (yes, even the fears of coercion: google the “Pinkertons” for a history lesson) Difference is, democratic government is lead by the people and is intended to serve their interests (whether or not they succeed). By their very nature, corporations serve only themselves and whomever owns them.

Like I said, government is a means to an end. Large groups of people have more influence on the world than the individual, if for no other reason than because they can pool their resources and make collective efforts. Organizations of some kind WILL form if there is a power vacuum, some malevolent some benevolent. Its a free for all, and the only way the benevolent one’s can survive is if the people, the ultimate source of ALL power, enact some kind of overreaching organization, i.e. government. You give up some of your freedom (be honest, you weren’t really taking advantage of it, were you?), but in the process we get more ability to actually influence the world within the rules you’ve agreed to through influencing the government.

And all that is derived from the concept of competition libertarians love so much.

You’re complaining about Totalitarianism as if that is the only form of government that exists. Therein lies the problem.

(whew, long comment…)

Horseshit. Libertarians simply disagree about what constitutes the “minimum possible and practical intrusion.” The devil’s in the details, not the platitudes.

I know of no reason why some kind of common defense would be contrary to libertarian philosophy, generally. The moral dilemma comes in when the common defense becomes involuntary–i.e. a protection racket, whether or not you call the protection racket a goverment or a gang.

Now, as a matter of practical political philosophy, many libertarians (if I may say so) would concede that some form of government for the purpose of common defense and common enforcement of law is an acceptable intrusion upon the general liberty that all people possess. The difference is that libertarians don’t forget that even that IS an intrusion upon liberty, and seek to minimize that intrusion as much as is possible and practical. What we see is that others seek to maximize that intrusion, and extend it into every conceivable area of human life beyond insuring the physical safety of life, limb, and property.

Let me add another cute one for your next post: Libertarianism: it’s when you go your way, and I go mine, and if we happen to meet, we will respect each others space! Isn’t that just precious?

Not much. The victims would have to defend themselves as best they can and if they aren’t strong enough then they perish as a group. Besides one group that Europeans must have thought were a group most deserving to be extinguished by the Nazis were the Gypsies. Sixty years later and Gypsies still get no respect and are generally despised.