not at all

If we look at the definition of Libertarianism by google.

```
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
```

Pre-1800, the monarchy was never absolute and was laissez-faire.

Yeah

No

It was actually a conflict between King and the Church in Western Europe

And a conflict between King and Nobles

Let’s be honest,

Let's be honest. Practical Libertarianism would descend into a monarchy

There has never been a country with a large population that has ever functioned under a hard government

Libertarianism operates under the premise that citizen lives are affected much less than other forms of government.

Except how do you force that?

But who said they were forcing it?

Oh you're not forcing it?

What happens when someone doesn't want to practice libertarianism?

The IDEA is less government control

That's exactly the problem

Asking for lesser government control without forcing it

then they suck it up

or leave

or

they take over the government

and enact more control

which is why libertarianism descends into a monarchy

Someone will rule his property like a King

his neighbors get mad and start to attack this person

And should this person eminently defeat his neighbors, he will be able to rule his neighbor's property

and so on

No.

"muh non-aggression principle"

That id very untrue

In a world with scarce resource and unlimited demand, the non-aggression principle is nothing more than a meme.

If you had McDonald and Burger King right next to each other and they should expand naturally

eventually they'll border each other and get mad

Tech

Both companies want to expand, both refuse to sit down

what is your political ideology

with limited government control

two companies begin to amass arms without any restrictions

and suddenly the company that wins becomes more powerful than ever before