Libertarianism? Seriously?

Alright, I wanna talk about this. What the hell is the benefit of being a far right/left libertarian or anarchist? I thought on this subject for awhile and here’s what I came up with-

If anarchy ensued the population would drop and the economy for the most part crumble as smaller organization try to counterfeit money, hospitals will be forced to be privatized as there is no government- which means the common man will die as anarchy would mostly invalidate money, the agricultural sector would be privatized- both of these important sectors could be monopolized because of the lack of government and be charged exorbitant prices. The police force is gone- so no one would be protected, so crime would sky rocket. So you say-
“I’m an edgy sheltered person who thinks if I had to I could steal anything”
Well once the looters remove small business, what’s to stop big buisnesses from simply developing high grade security forces? Raiders will likely be unable to tackle these private forces and will inturn starve, and because all the small “utopian hospitals” made out of the good of some ones theoretical heart, their only choice would be private hospitals- who will charge too much, so people will die of easily treatable wounds and diseases. Scientific advancement will cease as infighting will keep anyone from learning (no schools btw) and rampant sex trafficking and slavery. So debate with me Sup Forums if you are libertarian/anarchist- what would make any of this not happen?

P.s sorry if my thoughts are jumbled, I basically shat this out (pic unrelated)

wew so you didnt even bother to pick a book on the subject

Here’s what I gathered
Far left libertarianism, is basically anarchism
Far right is the lack of civil freedoms, with “natural law” and little government intervention (basically a corporate bordello)

Over time, a monopoly tends to charge higher prices for worse service. This applies to all monopolies, including a monopoly on the provision of law and order.

(OP)

Exactly! So that’s why I’m here trying to figure out the real benefits of hard core libertarianism.

All I can say is that you seem to be ignoring the concept of moderation. Less government interference in the lives of the public doesn't inherently require anarchy.

If you want to debate about just extremes, feel free to, and I know you did specifically say "far right/left," but I don't really see any worthwhile point to debating the extremes except for mental exercise.

>I thought on this subject for awhile
Not nearly long enough apparently.
If you have questions ask them directly, don't presuppose some poorly reasoned conjecture.

I appreciate your rebuttle, I ask because here in Florida (unsurprisingly) I go to a liberal college with students who believe in anarchism- so mainly I suppose, I’m arguing on anarchism- which is an extreme, but one that many believe in.

Ancaps want polycentric law, where instead of having one provider of legal services, there is orderly market competition.

If you want to know how this won't just devolve into chaos, search amazon for anarcho-capitalism and get a book and read it. I'm serious here. You aren't going to suddenly understand it from some dude rambling on Sup Forums. The topic is complicated and deserves a well-planned exposition.

Libertarianism is the ideal, but right now libertarians won't even acknowledge demographics or how to shrink the size of the government

You bring up a valid point. I guess then my main point- directly asked- is what is the point for supporting anarchism.
You are correct, my conjecture was very mashed, but I wasn’t sure if I needed to include a reasoning

when normies say anarchism they mean 'dude no property lmao', 'le money is le evil' which is moronic, libertarianism is the enforcement of property rights to its max extent

Hmm, fair enough. I'll leave you to your debates on anarchism, then.

>what is the point for supporting anarchism
That's easy. Because violence against other people is wrong, and the state necessarily levels violence and threats of violence against people.

So how exactly would a far left libertarian society function then?

it wouldnt

Saved! Will review when I have more time

They'd be filthy commies sharing everything together, or they'd be authoritarians who hold up a veneer of "anarchism" when in reality they're willing to use violence against people simply for not forking over their property to the mob when the mob demands it.

You’ve lost me

AHA! Exactly!

>including a monopoly on the provision of law and order.
What does his even mean? How is there ever anything but a monopoly on law and order in civilized society?

I'll type it more clearly.
I support anarchism because I am against violence. Since people in government threaten people with violence every time they make or enforce arbitrary laws - for instance, when you're ticketed for something like jaywalking - I must be against government since I am against violence in general.

Sorry, I didn’t articulate that part very well
What I mean is citizens would have to pay directly for contractors or “protection” to help catch criminals or control order. Government regulates law enforcement through ethics and taxes which means that for the most part a police force is available to everyone regardless of class.
However a privatized police force could charge more, act of their own volition or even not complete the task at all. Because anarchy

In that regard what stops your fellow anarchists from using violence to get what they want? Who will put away the murderers, the rapists and the scammers? Violence will be more likely in an anarchist state because people have no obligation to coexist

I'm articulating that I support anarchism for a moral reason.
I don't have "fellows". I condemn violence whoever it's from - it's just a fact that most violence in the world comes from government, and that government itself cannot be non-violent.

>Who will put away the murderers, the rapists and the scammers?
Probably some people, since it's popular. Cops and judges don't have magical powers - they're brutes with muscles and brute-bosses.

>Violence will be more likely in an anarchist state because people have no obligation to coexist
Moral obligations exist outside the state. States actually usually pervert people's senses of moral obligation in order to abuse them.

One. You’re assuming people will help you, what obligation does anyone have to help you when every one is in a dangerous state? We see that today with people video taping fights. No one could give a shit about you if you’re being robbed, infact, they might help attack you, so they can take advantage of your predicament

Two. Idk what you’re even talking about

>You’re assuming people will help you
No, I'm assuming people will help themselves, since I observe that usually they do.
There not being people who call themselves agents of the state doesn't make anything more dangerous, it makes things less dangerous because there's one less (really big) group of people who think they're perfectly legitimate in threatening you/beating you up/killing you/throwing you in a cage.

I don't know what you're confused about. If you could quote the part that's confusing you I could try to address it.

No shit libertarianism doesn't work as is. Nationalism should precede and continue into libertarianism.