"We might not be able to stop the collapse. It might (MIGHT) even be in our best interests to speed it up. BUT we must stand ready to take the reigns when it all crashes, and we MUST not let [collectivists] pick the man on the white horse, and shove his “enlightened” rule down our throats. You know what always results from it ... and we can’t allow it to happen." [emphasis added]That's a lot of "we" and "our" for one small paragraph written by a libertarian. But how do libertarians, who eschew power and refuse to "collect", obtain and use power in a sufficiently ruthless fashion, possibly compete against those whose primary purpose and goal in life is to obtain, maintain, and yield as much power as possible, usually in the name of a collective?
I've asked that and similar questions over at Hoyt's blog and it hasn't made me any friends (to say the least). It seems like a rather important and fundamental question, yet not only do she and her regulars refuse to answer, they paint me as horribly evil for even asking the question.