No worries. I've gotten in a few silly internet fights with LibLefts/LibCenters recently. I didn't even start them, they were just REEEEing at me 'cause opinions of AuthRight don't mesh well with LibLeft... no duh, but hey.

I don't think safety should necessarily be the priority of the State-- aside from national defense. I don't entierly agree with some ramifications of the phrase "personal freedom" for a few resons, including what I've already said.

I understand you taking exception to Auth philosophy due to your being a lesbian. While I don't abide the capital-"C" Community, if you know what I mean, I myself tend to be "heteroflexible or bi". Due to my own feelings, I'd rather emphasize heterosexuality for myself. I feel it's the right way to go, and I've always wanted the wholesome wife and children, nice home kinda thing. Those are my own feelings on that, so I'm of course not trying to judge or fault you. (In fact, I always suspected that if I were born female I'd probably be a lesbian...)

My point is that I think you could agree with some permutation of Auth philosophy and still be a lesbian or whatever.

(In fact, I'm sure you could look up quite a few emperors, kings, queens, etc. who were just that).

When I *was* more libertarian-leaning myself, I regarded myself as a libertarian monarchist, and I had some degree of fondness for Hoppe. I'd suggest "Getting Libertarianism Right" and "Democracy: The God That Failed".

Otherwise, I'm appreciating our conversation so far. :-)