Why is libertarianism so infallible?

It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.

>>32
I said
"Killing sentient life is evil. I the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
I meant
"Killing sentient life is evil. If the fetus is sentient, aborting it is evil."
Key word "If".
How long are you going to draw this out?

The ocean like the atmosphere is fluid, so a person who owns an area of ocean cannot use it to dump waste or it will interfere with the fishing business next door. If an environment has no tourism value, what's the point of preserving it? A lot more people need that land for farming or the minerals there.

"how are you going to keep companies etc. from bribing the people who regulate it?"
Indoctrinate them in the values of justice, tell them to accept the bribe but report them to the state anyway and increase the number of inspectors until the company cannot possibly bribe them all sufficiently.

"so let me ask you this, what's the most effective way to learn a kid how to bike?"
What is the point of your analogy? We do not need the state to treat them like kids their whole lives. After the CHILD learns how to ride the bike the parent is supposed to LET GO. The state does not do this, it is much like a pathologically over-protective parent who wants their child to be dependant on them by never letting them learn to look after themselves.

Computer run technocracy? Let me guess, the technocrats (enlightenned monarchs?) decide the best way people should live their lives? If such a thing is beneficial, then it should have no real power beyond anyone else. How about a social R&D or think tank which people pay to teach them how to solve their problems.

What stopped the wife beater from purchasing a six pack? The tax? How much tax would needed to stop him? What if he simply brews his own beer or distills his own whiskey thus evading the tax? Again who was punished? If alcohol really did cause 20% of users to beat up their wives it would be classed as a class A drug. The hooligan has to be punished to maintain the deterant, if the deterant is gone then hard working people will drink themselves into a stupour, hurt themselves and others thinking there are no consequences because they benefit the economy more.