Fair warning, I find Libertarians to be more deceptive, more destructive, and more brainwashed than Liberals. That is a decent way to start a thread thrashing them as rightly as they deserve.
Libertarians like to claim they are the Founding Fathers ideal, that they are morally superior and that the world truly is Libertarian in mindset. Of course that is the pot they smoke speaking. Truth is our Founding Fathers would be now identified with Conservatism or Constitutionalists. Here is where I am going to break down some of the fallacies of the left... err ... Libertarian.
An average libertarian seeks to decriminalize drugs. Some onoy want marijuana but the range runs all the way to legalizing any and all drugs. They advocate pot is unharmful, nonaddictive and 'cures' some ailments.
Now mind you I live and grew up in the Portland Oregon metro region, known for being both the Pot and Meth capital of the United States (historically speaking now). It deserves that statement. Disclaimer I never used. Now then I knew as a kid of a growing operation (60+ plants), I have known addicts, I have lived with adicts, I have transported in a medical capacity addicts, and I have done security against addicts. My own biological father was a marijuana addict and as a drug rehab councilor he admits it to his fellow recovering addicts.
I am often told that my evidence is meaningless by Libertarians, that one persons view can be seeing the very few worst cases. Sorry but this is a fallacy they have put up so they can plug their fingers in their ears and go "la la la I can't hear you".
If you have ever met a true pot addict you will know him. He very well may have a tinfoil hat. Even given recent revelations of NSA snooping his claims will boggle the mind of snooping and efforts to get him. His inventions, ideas, manifestos or other... interesting... stuff are the product of a delusional mind. These addicts however have their problem from pot... it makes you paranoid and delusional in many cases.
I underline the words many cases for a reason, but it is not yet time for that. Instead let us cover brain loss. A number of medocal journals tracking marijuana smokers have found actual IQ losses (not a deviation, not biased, the numbers speak for themselves) associated with pot smoking.
Libertarians will often call out such things as biased, amd blame pharmaceuticals, the Government, and others as having an agenda against pot (remember the paranoia part?). If pushed some of the more intelligent ones will try to divert the study by saying pot smokers are forced underground and therefore the study is flawed. When shown the study was thorough they instead falback to the Libertarian belief of "Personal Responsibility" and claim pot smokers are safe.
When I give them evidence of crime and accidents to show they are unsafe I get told that this is only a small minority of smokers having issues.
Now this is where I am in agreement but not in Libertarians favor. A small portion will have no effects, a small portion of users will get addicted, a small portion will have a pleasant high, a small portion will use it as a gateway drug, and a small portion will have allergies to it. Also a portion will commit worse crimes than possession or manufactoring... Between crime, death, and brain damage I, like other Conservatives, have drawn a line.
An average Libertarian also lamblasts the FDA... which ironically was made because Americans were tired of companies inserting drugs into everything and with soaring addiction problems (Coca-Cola anyone?). We tried your ideal before and we found we do not like it!
2) Military and War
History is furnished with example after example of nation after nation wanting to avoid war at any costs. The most obvious example is of course WWII. However other examples abound including the surrender of Prussia to Napolean (who later marched on him when he was weakened), the United States during the rebellion of what we now know as Texas, the Greek City States when the Spartans held off the largest army in the world, and so forth.
History also shows the cost of coddling evil nations. The mongols would terrorize anyone who dared resist, all were required to provide tribute. The vikings would go up and down rivers and the coast and if you did not pay tribute they attacked. Let us also not forget the Barbary Pirates who demanded ships, cannons, gun powder, and trade goods. The Barbary Pirates in fact blackmailed a new nation known as the United States for a while. N. Korea... pffft... too easy....
Yet surprisingly if every once in a while you smack some evil down evil everywhere dwindles... The first example is Tripoli. One of three nations making up the Barbary Pirates, our attack did not suceed but it came very close. After that all of the Barbary Nations decided to leave us alone!
Now this next example is held up as an example of a defeat. I disagree.... the entire principle worked. Vietnam was held up as part of a "domino theory". The United States tried to defend S. Vietnam and our air bombings and ground fights caused casualties in the millions. The North Vietnamese Army was essentially destroyed and Vietnamese Industry was ravaged. So scary was this example no more civil wars were initiated (excepting a few in S. America that fizzled) and the expansion of Communism by the sword was ended forever (when combined with the end of the Afghan War with the Soviet Union). Now yes China invaded Vietnam and other locations, that was not so much Communism expansion as pure landgrab efforts. The point remains, Communism was stopped militarily.
When I was a wee little boy Iran mined the waters between them and Saudi Arabia. In return we shot down aircraft, trashed some defensive positions and thrashed the hell out of their navy. For the next decade Iran wet themselves when a US carrier fleet came nearby.
In more recent times G.W. Bush invaded Iraq over a weapons program (try me Libertarians, oh please!) and Libya, in a haste to make sure they were not next announced a weapons program and unilaterally surrendered it to the United States. Not to mention a certain loved Presidemt bombing Khadafi's home and making his military adventurism end (the man ended up only able to sleep in tents he was so terrified over the event).
Ignoring a problem does not make it go away, bribes only lead to more bribes. The best solution is sometimes to smack someone hard. Btw that Tripoli war was done by a Founding Father.
A Libertarian will frequently say all regulations must go and all the agencies. A conservative knows some cannot go, there must be some things but it mhst be wisely run.
Case in point I drive a semi-truck. Trucking is the most regulated industry in the United States. While I disagree with some regulations I wholly agree that some aspects of my industry need regulation. I know the influence and power of bad fleet managers and their need to push you because the pressure above them. I do not want an explosives laden tractor being driven in a residential neighborhood after the driver has been kept going for 19 hours. No no no no!
Yes I do advocate the end of the Education Department, the massive scaling down of the EPA, and so forth.... but I am no fool... Interstate safety regulations is a wise thing!
I save my biggest hatred for the last. These guys are morons and I will say that til I die. Ok so we destroy all government and all military. Now what? Now we have the Mongols, the Mafia, the Klu Klux, the evils of the world uniting as a group (each their own). This group starts a Government and a military to enforce their will. They conquer a few regions each and establish full scale nations. They propoganda-ize their people and seek to grow even more. Eventually no more self rule but all dictatorships.
Some libertarians will say honest people will fight back. Honest people have a hard time resisting mafia pressures.... organizing against enemies in hiding.... ha!
Then there is corporate stuff. I would so try to monopolize something everyone needs and pay my employees generous wages (so they wont rebel). Such an easy win for the first corporation to get a monopoly.
A Liberal becomes a Conservative when he decides his ideology creates problems. A Libertarian becomes a Conservative when he admits his problems created his ideology.
The thing I find about libertarians is they act like they know history but in reality they do not. They seek a hero champion and try to take over via Parlementarian ways. A libertarian is beyond saving, they wiko acknowledge your facts and you will think you won, only to have them revert backwards right away.