Yeah, your quote seems to ignore how power manifests itself and what scale of social organization is needed for a society to function in a globalized world. The biggest issue I have with libertarian thought in general and the rhetoric from most libertarians in the US is they tend to ignore the entire discipline of sociology, how society's organize themselves and why. Instead most present the myth (ie Unicorn Land) of the self sufficient individual with no need for and therefore no connection to society at large. Your response also begs the question at what level do you "leave the people alone"? Lots of dipshits cry about the "tyranny" of their public works department when they have to build using the uniform building code.
You're misrepresenting libertarianism. Libertarians do not envision an "every man for himself" Hobbesian state of nature. Just because individuals are FREE to be left alone, doesn't mean they're going to sell everything and go live in a cabin surrounded by land mines. Individuals can, will, and should form groups to pursue common interests as long as membership in those groups is based on voluntary action on the part of the individual.
For example, libertarians could form trade groups or labor unions, so long as membership was based on a voluntary act of will without coercion from the government. Libertarians don't
prefer a disconnected society where the people act on their own, but want the odd individual who chooses to live that way to be allowed to do so.
I agree that "social organization" is necessary, but I reject the notion that the only way (or even a particularly effective way) to
achieve social organization is a top-down governmental approach. The organization produced from the grassroots is generally much more efficient and in tune with the needs of the people than systems delegated from Washington, DC.
The "self sufficient individual with no need for and therefore no connection to society at large" is a bullshit straw man. Libertarianism is BUILT upon free and voluntary exchanges with other individuals. I believe Aristotle pointed out that a man who CANNOT live in society is a beast, while a man who does not NEED to live in society is a god. The fundamental flaw of your criticism of libertarianism is that you equate "society" with "government." "Man needs society, therefore man needs government." Wrong. Social organization is absolutely necessary under libertarianism, but that doesn't mean it needs to come from the Federal Government.
It's also important to recognize that libertarianism has room under its umbrella for a spectrum of beliefs. The "most extreme" would probably be the anarchists or anarcho-capitalists that believe
all government authority to be illegitimate. Those are often the loudest of the libertarians and the ones that give liberarianism a bad name, but they are not the majority. Many libertarians accept federalism and acknowledge that local, state, and federal governments
do have legitimate functions in society. For example, I have no problem with
local building codes,
state roads, or a
national military. The key is to keep as much power local as possible. "One-size-fits-all" governance is risky at best because a California senator in Washington has no idea how to best address the issues faced by the citizens of Boise, Idaho.
