Nice try, Poohbah, but it has become patently obvious that your more Puritanical Libertarians are one-note Johnnies and not detail-oriented at all. Their solution to getting rid of "socialism" (notice the depth and breadth of their problem-solving skills here) is to get rid of "socialism". That is the same sort of mentality that tells us we can achieve world peace simply by stopping all wars. The hows and whys and wherefores of how to actually achieve those ends and what ideologically pure systems would replace the ideologically suspect ones do not occur to them. The devil is in the details, and as I said, these people don't deal with details, only concepts.
Your comments about water were interesting. How would an ideologically "pure" state legislature ensure an adequate and safe water supply to the state without violating their Puritanical ideology, for instance? Who would pay for it? Where would the revenue come from? Interesting questions, but sadly, every last Lib on this thread has avoided these questions like the plague.
Your comments about water were interesting.True-Blue Libertarians would absolutely hate the laws and customs that have grown up in the Western United States regarding water. They'd really despise the concept of "beneficial use."
"It's flowing across MY land, therefore it's MY water, and F*** EVERYONE ELSE!"
These guys do not understand the history of the regions they are thinking of inhabiting. The range wars of the West were the result of rigidly Libertarian laws regarding water allocation (i.e., no law at all).
How would an ideologically "pure" state legislature ensure an adequate and safe water supply to the state without violating their Puritanical ideology, for instance?
Why, they'd privatize it. Watch the range wars break out.
Who would pay for it?
Free men and women would pay whatever the guy controlling the streamhead decides to charge. If that means that water costs $10,000 a gallon, well, the folks downstream are perfectly free to import water from elsewhere if they wish.