[quadlock]

Wow! That's one of the two basic things. "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others except in response to force or fraud."

[arg01]

Yes that's great if everyone abides by your philosophy. But if we're doing that and expecting others to abide by it why is the statement not just "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others". The whole catch 22 is there is no central authority to enforce the philosophy unless you're expecting people to be angels but then you could say something similar about communism being a better system.

[mpyne]

And of course, "expecting people to be angels" is what led to $4.3 million worth of Bitcoin being stolen from a bunch of suckers by a con artist.

[quadlock]

Libertarians don't expect other to abide by it. Enforcing non-initiatory use of force and fraud is one of the legitimate purposes of the government.

[arg01]

I'm sorry I misread what you were saying as the thread came from one saying government control of force is not rquired as an open market on force is an alternative. I find a libertarian position much more defensible (at least as something that doesn't implode) with a caveat that there is some form of monopoly on force that is external to the market.