I disagree here. I'd argue that libertarians do not _deny_ the goal/meaning. They argue, that this is up to you to come up with or adopt, since forcing it on you would be an aggressive act. I believe that ultimately, the only meaning/goals you'll ever have are ones you decide on yourself. Now that could mean that others decide on the same goal, but that's up to each and everyone.
Now when it comes to stability, I agree with you! Libertarianism is beautiful and the
@monarchist @freepatriot only ethical way to run society we have. The problem though, is its inherent instability. "Herding cats" is a good illustration, and another one is to look to history and point at the nr of successful libertarian communities (long term) that exist, and basically you have none. I think probably the longest lasting might be the viking settlement of iceland which laster a hundred year, or a few hundred at most, before transforming into something less libertarian.
@monarchist @freepatriot The billion dollar question is, how can one "fuse" the liberty of choosing ones goals and values, with the stability of pushing a cultural package from above (for instance, nationalism)? If that is solved, we've have come a long way towards ethical public management.
The only way to run libertarian communities today that I see are as small microstates like Monaco and Liechtenstein, supported by blackmail and threats of biological or nuclear warfare and sleeper agents.
Americans say AI could never launch nuclear weapons in the future because AI has never launched nuclear weapons in the past.
Americans say AI could never launch nuclear weapons in the future because AI has never launched nuclear weapons in the past.