My take on government action is that the burden of proof should always be on the proponent of the action. As it is now, the opponent is one with the burden of proof that the actions should not be taken, and that is bass ackwards. Proponents of any government action should be able to demonstrate that the action is constitutional, necessary, will achieve its goals, and that any collateral damage is worth it. If they cannot do that, the government should take my advice and don't just do something, stand there.
“I know of no libertarian who wants no government. A true libertarian believes that government has a function, a small one, but that function it should perform well and powerfully, and do nothing else.”
ok in theory. But they never really tell you how they want to do it. They have plenty of ideas on what they oppose and repeal but they didn’t tell Reagan how to win the Cold War or Rudy how to reduce crime in NYC or Bush how to keep us safe after 9/11.