>>263
That's the wrong attitude.
>>262
Then we can find ourselves in agreement on some points. Yes, the Fed sucks. And no, not all central banking sucks -- I'm sure Bank of Japan is ideally suited for Japan. I just don't see a Fed-type system working in America.
As for the crime thing, that was anecdotal. I've already been admonished about that once...
Until this thread I had never heard Libertarianism called a science. It might be based on historical examples, but so are my theories about imperial retreat and the termination point of federalism. Doesn't mean either are scientific. The philosophy itself is much like Communism before the Russian Revolution: there are ideas on paper, but those ideas have not been tested; and no one knows exactly how they will be put into action or how they might fail. In a few more years it won't be possible because by then all Americans will have been raised, to whatever extent, by the government; and won't be able to meet the level of independence required by Libertarianism.
As for the followers, we do have an arrogant strain. It seems to be a common factor. But every other faction, party or religion in America suffers the same problem: a host of followers who know nothing of the ideology or theology, and thus most can't answer basic questions. It is unfortunate. But revolutions are led by the intelligent and pushed forward by the momentum of the sheep.
Libertarianism is not infallible. Those who say such raise it up to the level of deity. The only idea formed by man that can't be questioned, as far as I know, is Will Roger's quip that the only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
Veni, Vidi, Dormivi