[servo_sausage]

Libertarianism doesn't mesh well with reality; the government doing less is part of it, but it also requires a way for people to efficiently protect their property.

So you get to a point where mass surveillance is justified by the anti-crime angle; there is no contradiction, libertarianism logic where you can live and let live requires no crime...

[irishcoffee]

> Libertarianism doesn't mesh well with reality; the government doing less is part of it, but it also requires a way for people to efficiently protect their property. > So you get to a point where mass surveillance is justified by the anti-crime angle; there is no contradiction, libertarianism logic where you can live and let live requires no crime...

Whatever technical definition of Libertarianism you're using is very narrow. Nobody is under the delusion that Libertarianism requires no crime.

[direwolf20]

It does if you don't want a worse privately owned government. Either the government will stop crime, or Palantir and the Pinkertons will stop anything they seem to be crime, or there never was any crime.

[bigstrat2003]

No it doesn't. Libertarianism is just fine with the government working to prevent crimes. That is one of the main roles libertarians feel the government should fulfill!

[direwolf20]

The definition of crime is anything that libertarian doesn't like, of course.

[pixl97]

>technical definition of Libertarianism

You see, that's the great thing about Libertarinaism, it can be whatever you want, and when there's something you don't like you go "but that's not real Libertarianism"