But, this will lend support to a theory I've been developing about libertarians and their worldview. They view society as not only unnecessary, but also as harmful to liberty. To a libertarian, any form of government above and beyond personal choice is the same as the most tyrannical government imaginable.
Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. And under the Articles, they would wail and anguish about their State not being sovereign. And if their State were completely soveriegn, they would wail and anguish about living in a tyranny.
"Libertarians" don't want anybody telling them what to do under any circumstance imaginable. This author seems to have found the truth of his own convictions.
Unless illustrations are significantly in era as a rule I try to weigh the thrust of an article against the content. Sometimes there could be a major truth or important issue that outshines minor eras of factoids. Unless something is intentionally misrepresented or so blatantly in era as to be self-defeating to the thesis I overlook it. To me this article's topic is one that is fun to toss around.
Take for example this line "a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name "Clinton" may ring a bell here.) ''. At face value this makes sense to rational people as what person would not take care for their children's future well being. 2 obvious exceptions is some Caligula like maniac and the truth that power corrupts and delusions of grandeur may cause a monarch to take reckless and possible fatal actions. The second part of the statement is unimpeachable. Riffraff on the make are self-centered and inconsiderate.
As for this comment of yours - Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. I have actually heard some pine for the A.o.C. Is pining a bad thing when it is for freedom? 'Tis better than a central heavy hand. Local government is most responsive to and reflective of community. It could be though that a libertarian society would work better if it was one of a single culture with commonly held values. While people will always have differences multi-culturalism is bound to be contentious and could prove fatal unless human nature is miraculously transformed. The old adage "birds of a feather flock together" is a timeless truism. With limited government (coercion) people singing off the same song sheet will be able to co-exist more harmoniously than groups of conflicting world views. But still a very limited government providing only what the people themselves can not do is the best chance for success of multi-culturalism as people would not be divided into competing groups vying for recognition or benefits and complaining how their tax dollars sponsor things with which they disagree. Things like prayer in schools, books in libraries, gay community centers would not be points of contention if these things were privatized.
I heard of a 19th cent. town called Liberal , Mo founded by a man with a specific world view. He bought land and invited folks who shared his mindset to come and settle and kept it exclusively to such people. They were totally free within the guidelines of community standards. While I do not share their particular beliefs the point is they were free to do it. Today with all the Federal laws such a community could not be formed. We can't even have a large private club or corporation immune from government meddling. Ever hear of the Free State Project?
cordially,
P.S. libertarian thought as I understand it to be is not synonymous with anarchy.