[throwaway894345]

I doubt libertarians would agree with this characterization. Rather, they would probably say some amount of policing is required to preserve our liberties, which—as a liberal and thinking person—I’m inclined to agree with (murder, theft, and oppression long predate any sort of capitalism, so implying that police are a consequence of a capitalist system is silly).

[klyrs]

In discussing the realities of LA, SF, and Seattle with libertarians, most of them want stricter policing as a direct solution to the problems caused by rampant homelessness -- which is a result of wage stagnation and skyrocketing housing costs. People with the very most money are free to gamble on the housing market, and to pay people as little as they can get away with. Damn the consequences; those are felt by the people without. No matter that "small government" doesn't consider the size of the sprawling prison industrial complex. Whether or not libertarians would agree with my characterization is immaterial to the reality of the impact of libertarian policies which are tailored in favor of the rich at expense to the poor.

[throwaway894345]

> Whether or not libertarians would agree with my characterization is immaterial to the reality of the impact of libertarian policies which are tailored in favor of the rich at expense to the poor.

I was remarking about your specific claim about the Libertarian perspective and your implication that they’re inconsistent:

> [libertarians] see the police as necessary to insulate them from the negative externalities of late-stage capitalism.

The libertarian belief that a “rising tide floats all boats” might be incorrect, but inaccuracy and inconsistency are different things. Moreover, progressive policies have often been hard on the poor, and socialist and communist policies have been absolutely disastrous. No political ideology is blameless.