Comment: The problem is that you don't understand

(See in situ)

The problem is that you don't understand

that your argument is the exact same in principle as, "Well if you think the government shouldn't maintain roads, you shouldn't drive on the roads."

It doesn't make any sense and is an absurd conclusion.

As in my list of reasons, there is NOTHING in libertarian ideology that says, "You must pretend the world already works as you wish it would." Libertarian ideology is concerned only with how the government should function.

The government essentially operates a perpetual adhesion contact against the populace. Imagine if you had an adhesion contract governing your access to water - some entity charged you an absurd amount just to drink some water. Not only that, in this contract your money is taken from you to pay for your ration whether you take the ration or not, and perhaps most importantly, you never actually consented to the contract in the first place.

Of course you disagree with the idea that someone should lord over water and charge you unreasonable quantities to have any, and of course you disagree that you should be party to a contract you never consented to - but your opinion on the matter changes nothing right now. Does that mean you should opt out from the system and not receive your water, because you disagree, despite that it is your only option and despite that you have already paid more than your dues?
No, it means that you should be an activist to the extent that you can to change the situation but that there are clearly more reasons than one why you should accept that water.