"...who will keep the Xiongnu at bay? In the libertarian paradise of self-enclosed, isolated entities, who will grant crop subsidies? In the voluntarism of libertarian pseudo-state, to whom will the people turn in order to legitimize property rights? The basis of libertarian freedom predicates property rights and guarantee of individual sanctity, which does not exist in the natural, or the supernatural, sphere. These are arbitrary concepts forged via the use of force and maintained by the will of the ruler/state."
Rules are not rulers. Free men can choose to agree to follow rules of their mutual voluntary accord, without necessity of governmental monopoly. That nature itself shows this is possible in every nutrient pathway is demonstrable.
Social species organize themselves variously, according to their needs. Very simple organisms, such as colonial bacteria, leave no room for individual variation. More complex species, such as wasps, are considerably more lenient. Highly complex species, such as apes, dolphins, and people, required extraordinary variability in order to function well, and that even the most enlightened monopoly on power has ever failed to persist in the long run establishes that such monopoly as government entails is nonfunctional.
While I concur that killing me out of childish pique would ill serve monopolists, doing so because I promulgate freedom and create means of securing to myself and my community the power such rulers demand for themselves would be wise.
Except that it would be in order to preserve that power, which is unwise.
Freedom is wise, as it enables optimal quality of life for society's members - rather than just the few in power. As an autodidact I submit that it is unnecessary to train men, who can demonstrably train themselves, after their parents have done their job of providing the foundation for self actualization.
"... those who misperceive the benefits as hazard."
I will always know that stealing from me is not a benefit to me. Every form of arbitrary power over my free will will always be hazard, rather than boon.
Throughout human history, no society that has organized itself, centered on the concept of freedom has survived for long. The vaunted American rebellion that gave rise to the independent colonies failed miserably within a year, requiring the very freedom lovers to jettison their cherished Articles of Confederation for formation of a more centralized government. Rules need to be enforced by someone with monopoly on force, otherwise, the existence of unenforced rules become mere suggestions. That most enduring forms of social organization tend to be autocratic seem to suggest that man require organization, direction, and obedience.
The primary purpose of social and government organization is to provide a stable environment for their subjects to be able to develop their talents, within certain boundaries. Causal liquidation of subjects would be utter failure of purpose for such entities; far better be it that their erroneous subjects can be taught to recognize their errors and return to the community, renouncing their previous misguided thoughts and becoming advocates of their current social matrix.
As parents teach their children, so too the rulers and government lead their society in helping their subjects become civilized humans. We must give credit of social stability to Caesar and render unto Him His due when payment is demanded. Without social stability and legitimacy, what good would freedom accord a man? He would be as free as a wild tiger of the jungle, eking out subsistence in his short, brutish life.
I submit instead that vulgar power overwhelms the fragile flower of freedom far too often.
I reckon that history is woefully bereft of depth, even where it's deepest. We have been around for 100's of thousands of years, and I believe that for most of that time, we have primarily been as free as birds.
We will again, once we gain a base of technology that enables people not focused on overpowering others to flourish, as they did before, for millenia.
I suppose, if men value freedom over security, comforts, luxuries, and amenities of civilization, then they can live free as the beasts of the wild. But, in order to provide for stable, orderly society, in which men can have baubles of civilization, men are required to kneel before their benefactor be He God or Caesar.
I have lived in the forest, and may best approximate beasts of the field of folks you engage with.
I recently did so, yet was online. I paid money for the service, but kneeled for no one.
As technology increasingly empowers individuals such that they can obviate institutions and organizations, such as media corporations, and enforcers of traffic laws, for example, having any access to them at all, as I did, freedom will burgeon, and oppressors will gnash their teeth in futility.
There is a leading edge of revolutionary tech that is available to the well-heeled and financially encumbered alone, but that soon is so inexpensive that it is trivial for commoners to acquire.
Tech is making oppression obsolete, even though it now appears to be inescapable.
Good!
It is remarkable that you have become less dependent on services of organized, social institutions. For many, the so-called "99%," such self-discipline, responsibility, and command over their lives belongs in fantasy, next to Tolkien's Hobbit. While I do not doubt your success in subduing your passions and appetites to be aligned with your life purpose and responsibilities, the ignorant peasants either have little apptitude or desire to achieve self-actualization. Take away institutional social, legal, and religious control, these free men will be eating each other within a week. For many, slavery is a step up from what they would have done to themselves, if allowed to be free.
I am sad that I cannot disagree with you on a single point you have made in this comment, except to quibble over numbers.
I certainly hope more than 1% of people is capable of freedom.