So I have heard many different definitions of "libertarian" I believe, I don't know which one you like. But either way, do you really think the majority of libertarians are 100% blind
|followers of the doctrine? Like I give them 2 choices, you can follow your doctrine and die, or follow another doctrine and live, they would choose to die?
I don’t necessarily think it’s about following a doctrine, because if X had rejected the state entirely then X would no longer even have the option of a statist solution.
The choice would not be made in a life or death situation, but years beforehand in deciding how you wanted to live, and accepting any risk/reward that such a life would entail.
I understand this perspective, but at the moment, the state controls a lot of things in a way that other entities cannot. Society is set up for the state to do some things.
You are right that there are perhaps too many definitions of 'libertarian' to use the term w/o further explanation. Perhaps I should have gone with 'non-statist'.
I think there's no difference between libertarian statists and left/right wing ones.
The problem if you are not absolutist is of course that you have to know when breaking the rules is OK, and that is usually quite difficult, but that seems to me better still.
