But there are cautions, too. Even our choice of words can get us in trouble, when you say "individualism vs statism" the correct choice seems so obvious, but if we had said "anarchy vs order" (which means the exactly same thing), suddenly it doesn't sound so self-evident. And for 19th century anarchists, the word meant to them much like your "libertarians" means to you. Of course, to their opponents, it meant "mustachioed bomb-throwing terrorist".

Another problem is agendas. Sometimes an agenda is wonderful, but its proponents are suspect. This is what guides much of my thinking. I would love to see a Heinlein/Rand-style future but I suspect it would be quickly hijacked by top-hatted, frock-coated, satin-waistcoated robber barons. In fact, I find it difficult to see how it could not. And recent events have done little to convince me otherwise. I just don't have the instinctive trust in entrepreneurial virtue, or in natural market controls, that you seem to.

For me, some government control is not desireable, but it is a necessary evil, like maintaining a standing army in a dangerous world. You disarm at your peril, and never unilaterally.