"Statism"

If state power is "innately bad", then why not have any government at all?  Why not abolish all government completely, and its sister institutions of law, property, and currency?  Why not reduce everything to a state of darwinian struggle to survive? Would that not fulfill the gist of capitalism, to create a society where the strongest live and the weak perish? 

The answer is thus: Those in the current system use government and its institutions to protect themselves from the world, they need property, they need law, they need to have some semblance of society to sleep at night, they are all too afraid of a world where individual struggle is the only constant, where they can know that anything can be taken for any reason, that quarter will not be shown to them, and that no one has any outside force compelling them to aid their fellow man.

Those who ask for a reduction of state power, without its abolition, are cowards.

>>2
You know those "basic human rights?" NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THEM!!!
If people actually had "basic human rights", Genocide wouldn't exist, racism wouldn't exist, starvation wouldn't exist, crime wouldn't exist, and a plethora of bad things.
"Basic human rights" are what your government "gives" you, and then tries to protect them by taking them away from you.  You're giving up your freedom for security, which is a process that eventually snowballs.

Look at the 1780's in American history, thats about as "libertarian" as it gets, and you know what? We moved increasing ly statist over the last 200 years. Why? Weren't we at the people's paradise of social and political balance?
The biggest problem with libertarianism, is when shit hits the fan, it can't do a motherfucking thing (within it's doctrine) to stop the effects.

In such a situation, "Weak government" can't stop the fallout of economic crashes, violence, crime, death because it's so goddamn powerless to control it's constitutents, which is why government power was expanded to rectify the symptoms.

"But thats not the doctrine of libertarianism, they would leave the market alone and let it fix itself" Absolutely, if they didn't care about their lives or getting reelected.  Should they take that stance, I guarantee you that they'd be sacked for someone who'd do something, as they are not fulling their "duties" to protect "basic human rights" in the event of catastrophe.

The arguement for anarchy is that no matter how little freedom you give up for security, it will inevitably grow, and you'll need a revolution to reset the whole damn process over again.  If you give a government NO power, i.e. Zero, it cannot take your freedoms away.  Sure, you have nobody in your corner should a bunch of thugs come to rape your wife, but maybe that's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL (Now it sounds like capitalism, doesn't it?) to defend yourself and your family and ensure your survival.

Bascially, when you say that you are "giving up freedom in a practical manner to ensure the safeguard of rights we don't even have" you are saying that you are too much of a gigantic crying pussy to accept total responsibility for your life and those you care about.