[thoughtomator]

How do you infer the necessity of a 'very large' state from what I have put forward? Does a state need to be large to defend its people and to make and enforce laws against murder, and other offenses to liberty?

[JohnGalt]

Only a large state can go $500 billion into debt in one year to fight a war that serves no purpose 10,000 miles away, fought by government employees who hoped they would never see action and just needed the job, and financed through a anti-libertarian fiat currency, guaranteed through the anti-libertarian income tax.


No serious right wing libertarian can support the Iraq adventure. Rather, rightwing libertarians support closed borders, a well-armed citizenry and a decentralized government as they always have done.

"Does a state need to be large to defend its people and to make and enforce laws against murder other offenses to liberty ?"

A large state can't do any of those things very well and your stated support for Lincoln's war fought by Irish conscripts against Southern Civilians and paid for via an illegal income tax and complete suspension of the 5th Amendment is necessary in order to fight aggressive wars.

There is plenty of scholarship on the nature of the welfare-warfare state in rightwing libertarian circles, but leftwing libertarians continue to believe they can have the warfare state w/o the welfare state. That is why in the end, I am more at home with tpaine's left libertarianism that your version of 'libervensionism' which to me comes across as anti-Abortion Randianism.