Mr. Bell: if I were to summarize my arguments, they would be that governments are the way that they are not so much because they attract certain dysfunctional individuals, but rather because they are microcosms and macrocosms of human psychology. the problems with government that libertarians rant about are problems with human behavior. the solution is not to get rid of governments-- this is confusing cause and effect, symptom and cause. the solution is to work on human behavior. when humans begin to think in a different, positive way, their governing systems will automatically reflect the change. my essay was designed to show the negative aspects of governments that rabid libertarians are always endlessly ranting about are actually embodied in the psychologies of those libertarians themselves. therefore, while I agree with the libertarian that there are many problems with governments, I see no reason to believe that libertarians are proposing a workable alternative, based on their own stark biases and prejudices. in fact it seems quite obvious to me that their own "alternatives" are either "vaporware" or would be far worse in practice than even the dysfunctional systems we have in place today. rabid libertarianism reminds me of Marxism: sounds great in theory, and you might even convince large parts of the population or key people in power to follow it. but does it truly present an implementable and workable alternative? where are the specifics? identifying problems with government is quite trivial. this is destructive criticism, analogous to the guerilla warfare of words that rabid libertarians love. but criticism is easy compared to construction of something that works. when you focus your attempts on creating a system that embodies your ideals instead of ranting at those that do not (and complaining that you cannot because governments prevent you), you will make far more progress in developing your ideas and convincing the world to follow you than any number of essays can accomplish. if libertarianism is truly workable, shouldn't it be workable on small scales? what prevents individuals from actually starting it going at a small scale and growing it? that is the path that every government and nation has taken since the beginning of time, why do you think you should be exmempt? I don't see that any of your response to my essay detract from this basic message so I'm going to pass on a detailed reply.