There is a real-world example against prohibition of narcotics, and that is prohibition of alcohol. It did not work. Billions are spent on the War on Drugs, and yet it's clear that it's easier than ever to get drugs on the street. Posession of marijuana is the number one most committed crime.
The point you made at the end is essentially the argument for why legalization of drugs will solve a lot of problems. Competition will bring in ligitimate sellers (as in the alcohol industry) and get rid of all of the crime that comes from the local dealers who "own" street corners.
> If your libertarian politics doesn't include an actual plan to diminish the power of these centralized social organizations that want to control people's lives then it's not politics, it's fantasy.
The plan is simple: education. Libertarianism is so unconventional you'll be lucky to hear the media bring it up once or twice a year. Ron Paul (probably not a "pure" libertarian, but pretty close) is starting to change this with his huge grassroots following.
I'd venture to say 98% of Americans have never heard of libertarianism, and if they have, they simply dismissed the ideas as illogical, without actually researching the ideas. This needs to change.
The people ultimately decide who gets into Congress and who gets elected President. Once the people are educated and accept the ideas of libertarianism, it's cake.
> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state.
I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the /federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is arguably an inefficient system caused by bad government policies.
I'm a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. If it ain't in the Constitution, it's for the states to decide. If the people of a state want welfare, they'll vote someone in who will give it to them; whoever opposes can move to another state. 50 different implementation possibilities for everything. That's freedom.
Ron Paul, IMO, has shown there doesn't need to be a separate party. Ron Paul is a libertarian in many ways and yet he's been a Republican congressman since 1976, save for the few years in between that he went back to practicing OBGYN.
He actually ran for President as a Republican in 2008.
One option is charity. Keep in mind that the government pulls in $1.2 trillion from personal income taxes per year (ironically enough, that's the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package).
Anyway, in a libertarian USA, most if not all of that $1.2 trillion would stay in the hands of the people; that fact, along with a few other libertarian ideals, would mean a more prosperous people.
A more prosperous people, with the knowledge that the government no longer provides inefficient health care to others with their hard-earned money means... you guessed it. Also, a libertarian USA would mean cheaper /everything/ (including health care) because of the Austrian economic, free-market principles.
I truly believe it. I've got some excellent ideas based around for-profit charities. Imagine famous, fancy restaraunts situated in the big cities. The bottom floor sells wonderful food to the celebrities and rich folks. The rest of the building houses and feeds homeless people. Of course, it doesn't even have to be a fancy restaraunt, and it doesn't have to house homeless people.
The point you made at the end is essentially the argument for why legalization of drugs will solve a lot of problems. Competition will bring in ligitimate sellers (as in the alcohol industry) and get rid of all of the crime that comes from the local dealers who "own" street corners.