Does the government not employ teachers, fire fighters, police officers, military personnel, scientists, engineers, judges, lawyers, park rangers, construction crews...?

I don't think you're a moron. The reason I highlight this is because I think it shows the importance of a logically consistent system. There is no ambiguity in what is and is not "moral" in such a system, and it cannot be twisted to serve anyone... whereas with an arbitrary system, anything could be made to be correct. 

The problem with seizing property of a rich person is... well, everything. How do you define who is rich and who isn't? How much of their property can you take before it stops being fair? Who makes these definitions and why can't someone else make them? What gives you the right to take a rich person's property, but doesn't give them the right to take your property? I can understand why you might be inclined to do such a thing, but it opens up a world of contradictions and problems that can lead to far worse situations than the one you tried to solve with your good intentions.

To be fair, those questions I posed are not easily answered. According to the non-aggression principle, which is a core part of libertarianism for many (but not all) libertarians, the right choice is to not act aggresively against someone else. To do otherwise is to claim a greater right to how someone else can use their body or their property, which cannot be a universally consistent principle.

The NAP does not make any sort of assertions towards what should be done if someone violates it, however. It could be that in the trolley problem, no one would sue you for pressing the button to kill one, rather than doing nothing to kill five. But there is a right and wrong answer in this problem, and you must make that decision knowing that you have acted aggressively and you have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

@ Immortal
Yes, yes it's had to change. But during this process we've established some facts that have proven correct time and time again against endless criticism, like the earth orbiting the sun for example.
Do you think that theory will ever be proven wrong?

Evolution really has nothing to do with politics so it is a non-issue.

In regard to climate change I was referring to the human element, not change itself.

If an idiot argues that gravity doesn't exist, that does not refute the general acceptance of it. (This is in response to your statement on taxes).

the_dengle said:

Does the government not employ teachers, fire fighters, police officers, military personnel, scientists, engineers, judges, lawyers, park rangers, construction crews...?

155 million work force. Roughly 15% of that is public sector - those would be government jobs.

The government doesn't create jobs for the private sector was really my point. Didn't think I needed to point out the obvious...

He's not my idol. I just so happened to watch this video after reading this thread. Addresses some of the topics you've brought up.

Watch it if you want, but I'm not going to rewrite or offer my own reasoning for it. Frankly, it's not worth my time.

I don't think that's a good example. The fact that biology can be taught at the high school level doesn't mean that the students actually understand biology. Being able to regurgitate facts is a lot different from understanding the underlying meaning behind a field, and I would argue that being able to truly understand and analyze biological research depends on at least a college-level (probably higher) understanding of the material. I think the main point here is, if you asked a high-schooler whether evolution is true, there's a big difference between citing a textbook or teacher and actually explaining or justifying why that textbook or teacher is right.

Maybe another way of putting it is that there is a difference between a survey understanding of the material and a detailed understanding of the material. The later provides a way to analyze information. The former just gives you a bunch of unorganized facts.