Have you never heard of statutory law? Where do you reside in this great nation of ours where there exists no such thing as statutory law? And before you even pose the question, statutory law falls fully within the bounds of libertarian philosophy: it is the law, codified by the legislature, which is elected by the people, by which society agrees to regulate itself so that rights are both protected and preserved.
You're doing your absolute damnedest to promulgate an argument along some pretty flimsy ground, my friend. I salute your doggedness, but might I suggest you also apply some common sense as well? Libertarianism is NOT anarchism. Libertarianism does not yearn for NO law or NO government, but limited law and limited government.
Again you have avoided answering the question. Are you saying that a statutory law by its very nature complies with libertarian philosophy? Speed limit laws contradict your stated libertarian definition of what constitutes speeding.
You're doing your absolute damnedest to promulgate an argument along some pretty flimsy ground, my friend. I salute your doggedness, but might I suggest you also apply some common sense as well? Libertarianism is NOT anarchism. Libertarianism does not yearn for NO law or NO government, but limited law and limited government.
The application of common sense is actually where libertarianism fails as a political system. I have spent the better part of 40 years trying to reconcile libertarianism with politics and governance. Although libertarianism is a philosophy I can embrace, it fails in practical application. Limited government is actually the venue of conservatism absent the infringement of progressivism. I have always encountere the problem that when someone states they are libertarian, when forced to examine the nuances of their accepted political philosophy were in fact conservative.