Mini-bump:
In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.
These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?
What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?
