[yendu bwam]

Libertarianism requires absolute responsibility.

I agree with you here dheretic. The problem is that: THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OUT THERE. You can try to round them up and punish them after they've committed atrocious crimes. But that's too late. If absolute responsibility were even close to being possible (it's obviously not, to most people), then libertarianism would make some sense. It comes back to what Farah said. A lot of people are bad and do bad things.

[dcwusmc]

So you advocate punishing EVERYONE for what someone MIGHT do? If so, our Constitutional Republic is hardly the place for you. May I recommend North Korea or Iran as more to your liking? Here we punish people for what they actually DO, not what they MIGHT do if under the influence of something or other. (That is, we used to until the authoritarians started getting control of the machinery of government. But we Constitutionalists mean to reverse THAT vile trend.)

[higgmeister]

 THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OUT THERE.

Why does your way coddle them, and support them,
and nurture them, and make those irresponsible losers
social successes?

I simply want the irresponsible person to experience
the natural penalty for his actions.

Instead, what we have evolved into is governmental
control-freaks thinking up false measures that seemingly
attempt to prevent bad or foolish behavior but, in actuality,
have the unintended consequence of perpetuating and
intensifying negative behavior.

Stop putting handrails on the bridge and people will
began to notice that they have to be more careful when
they walk across the bridge.