The source: http://ladyatheist.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/10-reason-why-libertarianism-is.html

Now, I am by no means a libertarian, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing this as terrible.

Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy

This just patently misrepresents libertarians. Libertarians do not believe in abolishing all social structures. Instead, they argue that governments are an illegitimate form of social hierarchy because they hold a monopoly of force. They still endorse a social structure; the free market, voluntary association and capitalism. Human's aren't supposed to regulate themselves, their actions are supposed to be regulated by the free market and the position they are in in the social hierarchy.

The argument that is generally launched against libertarian conceptions of social structure is that the state is a product, or a requirement of capitalism, which the libertarian endorses. The traditional argument against the capitalist conception of the state is that they hold a monopoly on violence, which they use to exploit the profits of working class labour. The working conditions of capitalism force the bourgeois to organise nationally, rather than locally, and thus the state was born.

It's Impossible

"By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer an estate, the bourgeoisie is forced to organise itself no longer locally, but nationally, and to give a general form to its mean average interest. Through the emancipation of private property from the community, the State has become a separate entity, beside and outside civil society; but it is nothing more than the form of organisation which the bourgeois necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests"

• Karl Marx

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime."

• Max Stirner

If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory.... but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn't strictly libertarian. Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure. Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150. Those days are gone.

I feed on your ideology. The idea that a state, or a government, is the only possible way to organise society is heavily influenced by life under capitalism. In fact, the idea that society either functions as tribes of 150 people, or collectives organised by something identical to state governments is super wrong. Because the formal structure does not have to be state governments arguing against it is not identical to arguing that we should abandon formal social structure. Libertarians would continue capitalism, and replace the state with voluntary association and an unregulated free market.

It's naive

It assumes people are basically good. This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong. Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities. Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths. Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them.

First of all, the Christian call was unnecessary. More importantly libertarian views are usually contrasted against an-cap views for their belief in a limited government which deals with murder and 'sociopaths.' This is actually something libertarians may actually agree with OP on, however, they just don't think government is practical for anything else. Other libertarians would argue that the free market would create private enterprises who would act as a police for hire. They argue, as with many other things, that the private sector would be more efficient and return better results.

It's cold hearted

I generally agree with this point, but would have put it differently.

It ignores history

We haven't always had a U.S. government. It's only a little more than 200 years old. But we do know earlier forms of society. We've had monarchies. We've had theocracies. We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems that privileged people with money. Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less" government considering what our previous systems gave us?

It's funny that they mention the US government, but then every form of government they mention is non-American. To be honest, I don't know fuck all about the governments of the pre-European populations of the Americas, some may have been monarchies and theocracies, but I would think it would be wise to explicitly mention this. This is just reinforcing the same ideology as we saw before, instead of looking at systems outside, or unique to their own, they look to societies whose philosophies heavily influenced their own. It narrows the focus and makes it seem as though the only options are capitalist state or tribal, lynch mob dysfunction.

Moreover, in what ways are theocracies or monarchies 'less government' than capitalist state governments?

It's not natural.

In honestly, I'm not even going to engage this point. Governments and states aren't 'natural.' Agriculture and industry aren't 'natural.' Seriously. I'm not even reading this..

This is just drivel at this point. It's like, there's liberal, and then there's Liberal. Fuck me.

We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that.

Why? Also, why is this bad? I get it, you live in cities, you go to town, it's awesome. I would rather not go through the alienation from your community which an urban lifestyle entails, but that's just little old leftist me. I walk past someone on the street, they don't make eye contact and smile, I feel like a non-person. I get that my experience isn't universal, but the idea that urbanization is inherently preferable, or even necessary for society strikes me as needing some fairly rigorous justification.

In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources. Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation.

Government's do this. Has this person not heard of war? I mean, like, what?

Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse.

So, I have a story for you. The Maori peoples of New Zealand traditional venerated children in a variety of ways. Some hapu use words to refer to them which literally many little Gods, other hapu refer to their mauri, or life essence, as being closer to Te Kore (the potential to create, the ontological foundation for all existence in some Maori philosophy), while others refer to them as taonga, treasures who get their value from their ancestors authority over the land. Because children were so venerated you did not hit children, and you certainly did not beat them. Maori did not have democratic governments. Nowadays, within capitalist society under a European style liberal democracy Maori children are disproportionately affected by domestic violence. So this is just demonstrably false. Again, their ideology is on display; this is their argument (as I see it):

Governments exist to prevent domestic violence

Domestic violence occurs

Therefore, there would be more violence if we got rid of our government

But state government is not the only way to prevent domestic violence. The libertarian would argue, as I have said numerous times, that the free market would do a better job than the state at providing resources to end domestic violence. I strongly disagree with this, but this is generally what they would argue. Or, that a limited government would exist to deal with things like this.

** It ignores human compassion.**

Before it ignored that it was naive because it assumed all humans are good, now it ignores human compassion? This seems contradictory.

Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually in a smaller group. By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck.

Actually it doesn't, it just denies that government is a fair, or effective way to do so. It argues that the governments takes their resources without their consent, and redistributes it in ways that they do not agree with. Because libertarians view government as a bloated bureaucratic structure they also believe it uses the funds it has to help people inefficiently. It believes private charities which people give to voluntarily are better than a welfare system. A point you seem to miss. Yes, many libertarians argue people should 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' but that doesn't mean they aren't anti-charity, Libertarians believe you should do everything possible to make your position in society better, work hard, sleep at a shelter if you can't afford rent, go to food kitchens, whatever. They just don't believe they should be required, under threat of force, to provide the resources for these helping hands. What annoys me is that this is ridiculous in its own right, so why does the OP need to construct such a meek straw-man?

It ignores Somalia.

Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in Somalia so we can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. It's a chaotic mess. Why would anyone want to copy that model?

This is one example of an area with no government. I mean look at Syria, With a government terrorists and revolutionary factions constantly fight. Women and children are mistreated. There's no viable lifestyle other than military action. It's a chaotic mess. Why would anyone want to copy that model?

Somalia had a democratic government installed in 1960. A military coup d'etat followed the assassination of their prime minister in 1969. As the cold war came to a close Somalia's government became increasingly authoriatarian, as its strategic importance, and (I assume) Soviet support, diminished. In 1988 the government's forces began engaging in armed conflict with resistance groups, and Barre, Somalia's leader, was ousted form power and subsequently exiled in 1991. Somalia has been in a state of civil war ever since. That being said, Somalia has had a permanent, central government since 2012, although I do not know what the extent of their power is. Essentially, Somalia's collapse, and lack of central government is a result of a lengthy history which includes imperialist oppression, cold war international relations, and a total collapse of all central power which took the form of a state government. The government was not replaced with a system of voluntary association, guided by the free market, but by a series of military groups fighting in order to hold a monopoly on violence for themselves.

It's selfish.

Again, I agree with this point, I just again, would have argued it differently.

It's provincial.

It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world's nations are now interconnected. If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying on the government. But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.

First of all I do not think that is hypocritical. The libertarian would argue if there was an option where they could truly never engage with government and have access to all the best resources of our society they would, but they are not given that option. Again, the libertarian would argue that the free market would be a better funding system than state/tax-payer funding, and would be more legitimate. Secondly, I do not think libertarians ignore this. I think libertarians would probably argue this is one of the things which makes a true free market possible, because resources can travel such distances between any two communities, and they have the means to organise this movement. Perhaps a libertarian may even argue that before the internet and globalization governments were necessary because they facilitated engagement between geographically isolated groups, however, they are no longer necessary for this process. I don't know if they do argue that, but that's what I came up with in five minutes.

In short, Libertarians believe some ridiculous things. Despite this, presenting banal straw-men, and regurgitating trite, liberal ideology does not constitute an adequate rebuttal to libertarian talking points. This list manages to make two good points, and doesn't really do a fantastic job of that. It has imperialist overtones, and fails to provide any rigorous discussion. It could be essentially summarized as 'Libertarian views are wrong because they do not venerate the state, and the state is necessary' which is never effectively justified, and not obviously true.