[solidhybrid845]

The obvious difference between a libertarian government and divine monarchy is in the level of authority given to the government. In a monarchy, the monarch's will is law. Under libertarian government, the government is extremely limited to only protecting a very small set of rights. You could in theory have a libertarian monarchy where a king was only given a limited authority to enforce laws related to natural rights violations, but the two concepts are very different.

A libertarian democracy of course is more desirable. Which means the people's votes, or the authority given to their representatives, would be limited to only those issues related to natural rights violations. Under a libertarian government, the people are still quite free to exercise their will, only they could not use the government to impose their will on other individuals. Social problems can still be solved through community organizations outside of the government.

I think the biggest weakness of the pure libertarian philosophy is the uncompromising defense of property rights. If a small group manages to acquire all of the property, they can use their monopoly to exploit everyone else while the government protects their "rights".

[rayiner]

My view is this: once you bind everyone under the monopoly on violence that is government, its wrong to not let the people who are bound decide what the government should do. That's the fatal flaw of non-anarchist libertarianism to me. Its some cabal getting together to decide what "natural rights" should be then using the monopoly of violence to protect what may be their minority viewpoint. Appealing to "natural rights" is no better than appealing to "divine law." Its self-serving hand waving.

[iterative]

Under that reasoning genocide of a minority is just fine as long as it's supported by a majority.

[rayiner]

That's the old "there is no morality without God" argument. Just because rights aren't handed down on stone tablets (i.e. natural rights) doesn't mean that there are no rights. In the English tradition, rights arise from the long-standing practices and beliefs of a society. Thus, unless we have a society that embraces savagery and murder in general, it's not "just fine" for the majority to cause the genocide of a minority.

Also, what's worse: a system in which the rights of minorities may occasionally be trampled, or a system in which a minority of philosopher kings by design circumscribes the political self-determination of the majority?