19 “proposed” Tough Questions For Libertarians: A Follow Up To Stefan Molyneux Video 
Stephan Molyneux, from freedomainradio, offers a great video in response to some of John Steward’s questions to Juge Napolitano during their exchange weeks past. I thought The Judge did a great job engaging Steward but, like Stephan, I believe these questions deserve a little more attention. 
1. Is government the antithesis of liberty?
Not really. As Molyneux mentions in his talk, libertarians are against the use of initial force and governments' are simply a means of initial force. For as much as libertarians argue against governments, let us not forget that a government is not itself an evil. In fact, a government is not even an entity; it is simply a minority of the population with the most guns. Some have become so amassed in government-hate speech that they forgot who they truly hate--those who wish to control our liberties!
2. One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.
Let us rephrase this. If someone steals your money, your freedom is enhanced, granting that they use said money to pay for roads, infrastructure or big guns? Wrong! The fallacy here is of course that if the government doesn't build it, it won’t be built. Why is this the case? Clearly there is a desire to transport goods, services, and people via roads, ships, trains, bridges, etc and thus clearly there is an incentive for individuals to provide such services. There is nothing special about these sectors that would justify the invasion of our wallets. Markets, without government decree, would provide such services and individuals would, or would not, pay for them. The key point is that individuals should be limited to paying for roads and infrastructure that directly benefit them.
3. What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?
Who is this "we"? How did "we" become a topic for debate? This is what irritates me about modern day liberals and conservatives. How is voting with other people’s money chartable? How can you force charity without engaging in hypocrisy? The question is not "what should we do" it is "what should I do". You want to engage in business mentoring, financial charity, persuading others to give, or whatever other "good" cause that tickles your fancy, then feel free to do it, just stop patting yourself on the back for voting with other people’s money.  
  1. Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.
Molyneux is right-on in pointing out the stupidity of comparing evolution and free markets. It is simply engaging in pseudo-intellectual scientific babble. Anyone that cheers this either knows nothing of evolution, nothing of free markets or both. Free markets are the ultimate form of representative democracy. You vote with your dollars on the products you wish to be provided with and opt out of those products you deem unworthy. This of course in no way paints a picture of voting equality (some have more money than others), but said inequality is much more a function of evolution than free markets. In a free market you cannot collect others dollar-votes unless you provide them with something they value more than their dollar. And by definition, if someone engages in a trade they, demonstrated by their actions, value what they receive above what they exchange. Evolution doesn’t “pick” winners and losers, whatever that means. Evolution is simply “decent with modification”.   
  1. In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.
What is this silly "we are the government nonsense"? I would encourage anyone who believes this to read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. 
"In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters...As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge ANY ONE to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are." --No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner 

  1. Is government inherently evil?
Governments do not exist! Societies do not exist! People exist! We must purge ourselves from this sloppy thinking if we wish to approach the real issue. Anyone engaging in initial force against someone, or their property, is engaging in evil. There is nothing inherent about it. Individuals make choices. Some individuals, either under the banner of "government" or "thief", either under the cause of "greater good" or "self indulgence", must make choices as to either acquire another's property by exchange or initial force. If you choose the latter, you are evil!  
  1. Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.
Yes, because "sometimes you must go to war to ensure peace". Silly! There are no bounds to justifying force under this reasoning. You need only convince yourself that every evil act you engage in is for some cosmic greater "good", greater "liberty", greater "ethic", greater "god", etc.  
  1. As soon as you've built an army, you've now said that the government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? -Who do you think I am?- We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.     
If said army or police force is built by voluntary cooperation and exchange then no evil has been committed. We aren't negotiating how evil theft is on a small scale vs. a large scale, just like you wouldn't negotiate how evil a small amount of rape or murder is in comparison to a large amount. 
  1. You say: government which governs least governments best. But [what of] the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for eight years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.
Only if you define "didn't work" as a limitation on initial force. I will happily exchange our current system of aggression any day for the Articles of Confederation.   
  
  1. You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.
Yes, because no one would have any desire nor inclination to put out fires without public run fire departments. Hell, we might not even know to stop, drop, and roll without government programs right? Individuals would simply remain stupefied in shock while on fire. Silly! Privately run fire departments would have much more of an incentive and desire to save your family and your family’s home than any public fire department. In fact, it would be within their interest to make sure homes who contract with their agency have built in protections such as: sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, etc. Private fire departments may even offer guarantees to their customers to be at their home within a specified amount of time or all damage incurred will be paid by their company. Out of competition, fire departments may offer a family whose house was destroyed by a fire up to 60 days of free rent while they sort out the specifics with their insurance company.  Individuals could purchase the bare minimum fire protection for strict emergencies or could purchase more expensive fire proof guarantees. Mortgage lenders would likely require homeowners to have basic fire insurance and even those without fire insurance may still receive emergency service for a high fee. Nevertheless, you pay the IRS agent because if you do not, they will seize your possessions and place you in jail. 
  
  1. Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.
Sidestepping if corporations are actually legal entities under the opinions of libertarians, the answer to the question is simply competition. Companies whose services or products don't deliver what they promise (what we call trust) will be punished in the market place. They may even receive lawsuits for their incompetence or fraud. When was the last time someone sued the congressmen? What recourse does the consumer have against the broken promises offered to them by congress? What's insane is Steward's view that greed, self-interest, self-preservation or simply love of ones self is limited to market places only. As Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue: 
"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest ? ... Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?."
  1. Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ..and there are choices within the educational system.
It baffles me how some look to our health care system as a beacon for free markets. We limit the supply of doctors, limit the supply of medical schools, limit the supply of hospitals. Require excess education to inject a needle, administer a drug, hang an IV or offer a medical opinion. Why? To keep wages high). We place massive restrictions on any health care professionals emigrating to the U.S. from elsewhere, force insurance companies to insure, force pharmaceutical companies to pass through bounds of expensive red-tape and all around just regulate, regulate, regulate! Our health care system is a shameful display of bureaucracy but has somehow become a poster-boy for free markets.    
  1. Would you go back to 1890?
What a stupid question. 
  1. If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?
Well, if we didn't have free markets we wouldn't have crafts that fly or choices to purchase broccoli or ice cream at our local grocery store, and more would die from cancer. But, to indulge in this stupidity, it's true that without regulation we would be closer to curing cancer, closer to offering affordable personal aircraft and we surely can offer broccoli flavored ice cream! 
  1. Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80’s and the 90’s were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is come out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.
How can free markets be tried if government expanded throughout the 80's and the 90's? Regan out socialized communism, nobody read Bush Sr’s. lips about new taxes and Clinton, well...Clinton may have been more free market than Bush Jr., but that doesn't say a lot.   
  1. Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?
Because they wanted better working conditions. No libertarian is against voluntary unionization. We are against striking workers beating up scabs, blocking gates, trespassing on property they don't own under the assumption that they own their jobs.   
  1. Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.
Without government, unions would be left to engage in voluntary interaction. They would be forced to peacefully negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions. Yet, better pay and working conditions are not simply a function of labor unions. Companies must bid up wages and better working conditions to attract more productive workers; this alone has put more air conditioners in office buildings and warehouses than any union.   
  1. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Martin Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.
Was miscegenation produced by free markets? Was slavery produced by free markets? Sidestepping this, who are you or anyone else to decide who may enter someone’s home or restaurant? What gives you the right to force integration? If someone’s wishes to engage in racist, religious, or cultural bigotry, then it is their right. But let us not forget that the market has built in mechanisms against this. If some business wishes to engage in said bigotry then they must be willing to forfeit profit and turn down more productive workers. They must be willing to pay for their racism! And clearly, in the world of competition, other businesses would be willing to steal such profits and productive workers from these people.    
  1. Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.
This is equivalent to saying "force" is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions. Force is not necessary, governments are not necessary!