A) Because the entire heard goes with the majority pick.

B) Again... pretty much everywhere.  Ever watch the nature channel before?  Animals are routinly driven out or punished for not going with the will of the pack.

Usually NOT by the Alpha male, because honsetly he doesn't give a fuck, as long as he's sitting on top and can pick who to mate with, he's happy.

libertarianism is just the extreme of liberal belief in a nightwatchman state. Therefore they would criticise individualist anarchism on the grounds that in anarchy, rational individuals would infringe on other's rights to life, liberty and property, which the state can help prevent; this is similar to Hobbes' vision of the state of nature: 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.

Keep in mind that I am a social democrat, therefore I am speaking from political theory, not my own beliefs.

I'd note by the way that i'm not actually a Libretarian in the true sense.

I'm more of anti-corruption than anything.  The more complicated and the more you divide people, the more you create special interest groups.

Give me the ability to make a tax code right now, and i'd make a Three tiered progressive income tax system with NO deductions beyond Charity.

One for Wage Income, and one For Investment Income and one for Corporate Income (much lower then we have now).... with a Corporate VAT added on, so everybody who plays in are markets pay for it's maitenence.

No tax breaks or subsisdies for anything.

Note the Progressive Coporate tax.  Largely because I believe if anything things should be fostered to help smaller buisnesses.  Right now, the larger buisnesses often will take some regulations just because they know it will hit their smaller competitors harder.

My main issues with anarchism:

1) There is not enough to ensure that my rights are not violated.

2) There isn't a solid argument for anarchism in terms of national defence.

I've tried debating anarchists on the Anarchist Facebook page, and it was really difficult... the main reason being that even the anarchists did not agree, and just ended up arguing amongst themselves. Some anarchists believed that property rights could be protected through various means, whereas other anarchists were opposed to property rights at all. Some anarchists contend that an anarchic system would only work if it was global (in response to the national defence argument), whereas others seemed to believe that anarchism would be enough defence, as an anarchic country would not "ruffle any feathers", so to speak.

But some anarchists do...

Anarchists can be the extreme at either end of the scale. They don't seem to realise that they actually want entirely different societies which would work based on different aspects of human nature - those aspects, being of questionable realism.

Anarchists who want communal property are just communists who either haven't read the communist manifesto or didn't understand it.

Well or impatient communists if they do understand what the end result of communism is supposed to look like.

surely the ends of collectivist anarchism and Marxism are pretty much the same, it is the means in which they differ?  The likes of Bukanin still believe in a Marxist style end of history utopia, but would reject the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, arguing instead for an instant abolition of the state.

Libertarianism is the opposite of Liberalism. Libertarianism is a system which caters to the healthiest and most selfish people in society; those who are unhealthy or unselfish are at a disadvantage. The aim of Liberalism is to provide the greatest life experience possible for every man, woman, and child; it is precisely the opposite of libertarianism.

The core of Libertarianism is Anarchy - but not in the true communist sense where all property is public; but in the sense that everyone with possessions has absolute authority over that property - it even permits racism, a Libertarian politician in the US said that people should be able to turn away customers based on race.

The core of Liberalism is Democracy; we're familiar with the concept.

Libertarianism works on the principle that the people will help the people.   Where liberalism expects the government to do this for them.   Libertarianism is hardly selfish whereas you could say Liberalism is just lazy.   Worse, it breads a society that becomes dependant on that government

As for the property rights of a store allowing the proprietor to turn customers away based on race, that's true.  However, you're missing how that business model would eventually lead to a business failure given that most people would not shop there.  That's the point.  It balances power.    The proprietor can choose his rules (it is their property, after all) while the people can choose to support such a business practice or not thereby enacting their own citizenry regulation....power to the people.

I think the simple answer is it wouldn't work on the scale needed for our population and probable future expansion. Dead end option.