[Antoninus]

As for the "never been tried before" issue, you're right. We haven't tried Libertarianism before, per se, but the first few decades of the American government were far closer to the Libertarian ideal (minimal government, maximum individual rights and responsibility) than most will admit. We sort-of have tried that before!

Actually the revolutionary French government was probably closer. American had no shortage of legislatures and executives ready and willing to pass and enforce "victimless" moral laws that modern liberal-tarians would have found anathema.

BTW, associating Libertarian government with anarchy is both misguided and rude. Libertarians advocate smaller government, not no government and fewer laws, not lawlessness. There is a significant difference between that and anarchy, thank you very much! ;)

I've debated enough liberal-tarians to know that equating their philosophy with anarchy is neither misguided nor rude--it's just cutting to the chase.

[Filo]

I've debated enough liberal-tarians to know that equating their philosophy with anarchy is neither misguided nor rude--it's just cutting to the chase.

Slinging insults in any form is rude. Comparing Libertarians to anarchists or liberals is insulting, especially 'round here! ;)

Just because you don't fully understand, appreciate or agree with the philosophy doesn't make it the equal of other evils. You're probably right about the revolutionary French government, but it's almost too close to call.

Either way, both early governments were fairly close, albeit with a bit more moral guidance, up until the early 1800s.

Still, the concept of imposing your moral beliefs on others, whether from the left or the right, is equally obnoxious. Granted I (and most Libertarian minded folks) lean more towards the right, but still. . .