"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.

>>5
You seriously don't get the fucking point, you're thinking in a box. I'm saying that human beings DONT HAVE THE RIGHTS, when you 're born, you don't have the bill of rights! They are ficticious  , you don't have them, and nobody ever has.  Government shouldn't exist to protect something that it created as a justification for it's existence.  Please, prove that they exist to me, or just spout some garbage over why they "should".
Your understanding of history is also seriously lacking, there were many difficult problems the country went through, such as boom/bust cycles and horrific treatment of labor and inner city poverty.  Lots of people lived in poverty, the economy crashed every 20 years.  You seem to forget another piece of americana, the motherfucking civil war, which was only solved through Lincoln's broad use of Executive power, and btw, he violated those beloved human rights by arresting anyone who talked shit about him.
"Unless people stay vigilant"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH This is just what I'm talking about, you stupid shit, people don't fucking care about protecting their "freedoms" when a government is there offering to bail them out of their hardship. Let's take the Great Depression, you know, that consequence of a free market? What happened after the crash of 29? What happened in 32? Who got elected? What did he say he'd do? What programs did he start that people thought would solve their problems? What did that President do that took away the people's freedoms?

Bascially, you're expecting people to act rationally, and endure hardship for an indefinite time just to safeguard their freedoms while they are afraid, hungry, poor, or unemployed.  You silly libertarians, you expect people to vote like robots, rather than beasts.

"Then "Other" governments can" Really, I'm quite sure another nation could subjugate an entire nation through military might and keep us in perpetual slavery, hrm, we have a nation of roughly 300 million people, Tell me how they'd control that many people, and the logistics of suppling the army, and the positive income they'd recieve for taking us over, sorry dude, not going to fucking happen.

Social tolerance, here's the big one, socially tolerant people don't exist in America, you have a national gay-marriage ban in the works, you don't elect women to office, you have drug bans everywhere, and won't let a woman buy fucking pills without a doctor. I think you have our country mixed up with Sweden.

I'll reiterate for the last part, Libertarians forget which nation they're in, they ignore the evidence that people will vote for a savior more often than themselves, they think that it's possible to keep government clean (good one), and they (you) seem to totally ignore the question of whether or not they have the balls to accept absolute responsibility for themselves, and whether or not they need a big brother to watch them should big bad France come around to invade us.

You fail for:
1. Ignoring the questions asked.
2. Not citing your historical evidence.
3. Spouting party commercials.
4. Claiming the existence of mythical beasts (socially liberal republicans)
5. Thinking that a doctrine will be adhered to more than impulses.
6. Ignoring the big insult that libertarians are still pussies because they want a military to shoot the citizenr..er, Frenchies.