It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism.”

Weird, I don’t see anything about states or statism in there. I’ll give you a hint. “Reform” doesn’t always mean more government regulation.

That’s what we have courts for; or some sort of victim recompensation system.

But who can we trust with that kind of power?

I would think the idea that the producer of a written work should profit from his or her productivity would be consistent with libertarian principles.

Countries that have been strangled by overactive liberal democratic states, such as India, Argentina, or, yes, modern USA, don’t ever into into this definition of ‘history.’

If the ride  breaks, it’s somebody’s fault, and probably both of their fault.

As for what “real libertarians” believe: Ron Paul thinks the slave owners should have been compensated.  Is he a “real Libertarian?”

Putting it in terms like that, you might understand why I find such widespread hostility to libertarians troubling.

1. Not everyone who self-identifies as libertarian seems to have the same opinions you do.  (Which makes the many attempts you’ve made to speak for all libertarians on this thread kinda weird.)
2. Libertarian ideology is dangerous.  While many libertarian critiques of the state are right on, the libertarian solution is fucking scary.  Even if there was such a thing as a “free market” (there isn’t) it probably wouldn’t be an efficient way of distributing wealth in the real world for the reasons pointed out by Adam Smith and others besides.  The “no force” moral theory is a cute thought but under libertarian thought refusing water to someone dying of thirst does not constitute force.  This completely undermines the concept of voluntary participation.  As long as I lack the means to feed myself I am at the mercy of whoever is willing to sell me food.  If I do not own any land then I am at the mercy of those who do.  There’s really no “free choice” when it comes to finding a place to live and feeding oneself.  Chomsky points out that what passes for “libertarianism” in the US is essentially just the idea that power should be possessed by completely unaccountable private entities rather than barely accountable public entities.  I think this critique is right on.
3. The “moochers/parasites vs. producers” meme is tearing the nation (not the government, not the country, look it up if you’re having trouble) apart, as is the idea that one’s paycheck actually measures one’s value to society. 

Sorry, that was really quick and kind of scattered.  I can work up a good essay on what’s wrong with libertarianism if you’re interested.

Also, we have more than enough data.

Yes, it’s called “history”.  But libertarians just ignore all the parts that pose an inconvenience to their rationalistic moral theories.

Woulda thought a “true libertarian” would know the golden rule by now.

amusement park rides of a company whose survival depends on their safety than

Ride breaks.  Owners claim it’s the fault of the manufacturers.  Manufacturers claim it’s poor upkeep on the part of the owners.  You get stuck with your own medical bills.  Welcome to Libertopia.

“good=libertarian

bad=anything else”

Effort + intelligence does lead to wealth, time and time again through history.

The question isn’t whether effort plus intelligence ever leads to wealth but whether it consistently leads to wealth and also whether it performs better than other routes to wealth.

So far, I’m not really convinced unless you define “intelligence” to mean “the ability to make money”.  And then it’s kind of a tautology, isn’t it?

Really struggling to understand why an imaginary scenario by an inept propagandist should cause me to rethink anything whatsoever that I already know about the real world.

Save your scorn for people who care what you think.

For example, every libertarian I know sympathizes with the Confederate South in the Civil War; the feeling seems to be that the slave owners were treated unfairly, and really should have been compensated for the loss of their “property.”

Not exactly the kind of people who respect the shit shovellers. . .  but I’m sure the libertarians you know are perfectly delightful people.

You could certainly *start* a libertarian commune, and people would freely join. However, without an enforcement mechanism- up to and including not letting people leave and rejoin whenever they feel like it – you cannot expect to *maintain* one.

Again, there is no point in denying that the semi-mythical true libertarian is against contracts of adhesion or contracts so overtly one-sided that nobody would sign them if they weren’t effectively mandatory; but the fact that my ‘recourse’ in most commercial contracts is an arbitrator of my enemy’s choice is hardly a major plank on any libertarian platform I’ve seen…

“Turned down for membership”, by the way, meant “Couldn’t make the expected admission payment”. So much for Beck’s little “Biodome” following the Randian model of the most valuably brilliant folks on the planet being invited to live there in peace and progress.

Touched a nerve there, did I, Sasha ?

You can work very hard with a chisel and hammer your whole life reducing a boulder to pebbles, and you won’t be wealthy.

Likewise, you can work very hard your whole life and McD’s, and you won’t be wealthy.

But if you work very hard at well thought out pursuits, it’s not a guarantee, but yes, you can become wealthy.

Libertarianism and communes are highly compatible; statism and communes simply aren’t.