The conversion from present authoritarian statehood to libertarianism has to happen in stages.
For example:
>Option A) First remove the welfare system, then open borders. There is no influx of immigrants, because they would have to work, and none of them want that.
>Option B) First open borders, then try to remove welfare system. There is a massive influx of immigrants to take advantage of the welfare system, and they prevent its removal by outvoting you.
The left and the pozzed right are arguing for option B, whereas a very tiny sane minority is arguing for option A. Far right is arguing for closed borders and welfare, which also might work, but then you're stuck with the millions of leeches already in your country.
The same predicament is the cornerstone of the drug debate:
>Option A) Remove government funded healthcare, and only then legalize drugs. People are free to do whatever they want to their bodies because their declining health doesn't affect anyone.
>Option B) Legalize it! All of a sudden the healthcare system gets a massive burden of druggies, that sober people are forced to pay for. And the growing number of druggies keeps voting for public healthcare because they don't want to pay their own way.
A proper libertarian position is Option A, which ratchets in freedom by degrees into the system of the state, weakening it over time. Druggies generally argue for Option B, which is why I have no respect for them.
>>83803
>30%
I have bad news.