It's strange to me how libertarians (we who are "aVal") are called "extreme" when the opposite is clearly the case.
For example:
One type of statist wants walls around everything. They don't stop with their houses, and private property, but want walls even around other people's property, in the form of "national borders" with actual physical walls, if possible.
The other type of statist doesn't stop at objecting to walls along "national borders", but doesn't even believe in private property, and therefore doesn't want you to exclude anyone from anywhere; it wouldn't be "fair".
Sure, there are degrees of extremism even among those poles of statism, but they are all comparatively extreme.
Only those who walk the line of reasonableness between the extremes manage to balance their principles where they need to be: walls around the property YOU own and control, and nowhere else.
The same goes for every other "issue" where liberty lovers are called "extreme".
Just look at any issue-- guns, drugs, trade, whatever-- and notice how extreme the statists are, and how reasonable, with regard to reality and human nature, libertarians are. This is because liberty is self-regulating. As it should be. And, that leaves the statists no room in which to rule the world, and they don't like it. Too bad; so sad. Reality doesn't care about anyone's feelings.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
