What do you mean by limit the state "completely"?

to prevent it from being capable of tyranny

If anything, libertarianism opens the door for social conservatives to shine, no?

You can't do that

right, that's what I'm saying

You can limit tyrannical capacity, but you can never eliminate it

Libertarianism is based on that principle

So long as you're still allowing a government you are creating an easy target for power accumulation and centralization, which is why vigilance must be a focus

But it's not a social plan, that has to be decided by communities

Which is where you can make your social ideology shine, if it works as well as you suggest
That's a general "you" fwiw

Hm?

Are you thinking of a Libertarian government?

Because a libertarian government could be one of several configurations

You could have one of several kinds of democracy, there's also theories that emerge from prior authoritarian rule, not unlike commieshit (though I'm not a fan of those)
You dont even necessarily have to make franchise universal. It all depends on how you wanna argue rights really

^^^^

I see that said a lot but I think it mostly comes down to the libertarian answer being "people will have to figure it out"

Like do I know the exact solution every community will take to a given issue? No. Some of them will even make bad decisions

But I think it's important that, so long as fundamental principles aren't being violated, that people should be free to do dumb shit

And then pay for the consequences

People are prevented from particular solutions due to arbitrary law

People are free to rescind their rights on an individual basis no matter what

But the goal should be to restore a system under which states are separate and people have those rights

Or do you feel you have a better solution?

Both, in their own way. US States should regain their rights, nations shouldn't be shoved into collectives like the EU

You can enter a collective, you should not be forced into it

It's pretty clear that the EU is a series of slow creeping agreements designed to erode sovereignty, bolstered by economic threats

Are we going to descend into spergery here?

I'm using nation to refer to the state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

I'll let you guess :^)

I'm not going to bother if you're going to be deliberately obtuse, particularly when you haven't outlined your alternative

Where my syndicalists at?

The first sentence describes a category, the second describes a disagreement, the third provides a definition

A state at its core is a compulsory organisation with a monopoly on force

I dont find that question relevant

The reality is that they do

That's not being obtuse. It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't being that it seems to be a consistent outcome to form a state

Legalize did your boyfriend dump you or something? You're behaving worse than me on a Friday night.

No it doesn't, because I find the shoulds and shouldnts of it irrelevant. I'm interested in the specific structure insofar as it has to be lived in

I mean, what even is a state, really?

See above :^)

If I got the same results with a state as without, or vice versa, that would make little difference to me