So because I have been in the US only three weeks for some scientific reason (and decided for myself that this is the most boring country I have ever seen) I have a completely insufficient life experience? LOL. I would guess you have insufficient life experience about North Korea, so, never talk about what happens there. You have completely missed the point. Which is not about what people do, but what they would be obliged to do by libertarian principles. Jim Cow laws are unjust, because they reject freedom of contract. If the motel owner does not want black customers, this is his right as the owner not to have them. No, I simply follow completely different principles. Libertarian principles are moral principles. I explain you what is morally allowed by these principles and what is not. These principles are violated systematically by all states. And, without doubt, they can be violated even without a state. And, of course, an ideology, which defines certain groups as subhumans or enemies, will force the adherents of this ideology to refuse cooperation with this group. What to do with such ideologies? One idea to fight them is a totalitarian state with a "good" (means, the own) ideology. If you reject this, then one has to think about possibilities to organize a society accepting that different people follow different ideologies, with almost all of them (of course, with the own ideology as an exception) being stupid bigots (or whatever the term which describes the enemies of the people in the own ideology). The base of such a society should be that the different ideologies obtain a possibility to live peaceful with each other. However stupid the other ideology, the believers should have a possibility to live in peace, undisturbed by the other ideologies. And the society as a whole should not take sides. Even the right of small stupid ideological minorities should be preserved. This was - restricted only to religions - together with the free market the base of the american success. The weak place was this was restricted to religion. But it should hold be applied to all ideologies, secular ideologies too. If not, secular ideologies could be used to create a totalitarian state. First, it was the right who has used anti-communism for this purpose: Communists did not have the rigths of a religious minority, so one can fight them, introduce anticommunism as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress them. Now, the left have also found this possibility, and fight racism and the rejection of gay rights. Without, again, giving the racists and homophobes the rights of a religious minority, introducing anti-racism and gay rights ideology as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress the "bigots". And as the left, as the right have found agreement about "sexual predators" being subhuman, the fight against these subhumans is state ideology too, and what the police does against "sexual predators" has already all the characteristics of a totalitarian police state. So, please understand: I may be an atheist, free-market supporter, gay, love blacks and hate sexual violence. But, nonetheless, I may support the rights of religious minorities, communists, racists, homophobs, and even of criminals (for a just penalty in accordance with the "an eye for an eye" upper limit). Simply because the danger of a state with a state ideology (quite independent of what this ideology is) is much greater, it is, in the long run, a totalitarian state. Even the point with the child labor you haven't got. Of course, in a small isolated society with no ressources for science and technology development, near the subsistence level, child labor will be stable for a long time. But this is not the modern world. About monopolies: Yes, they need government support to persist. The best example is software. There was, initially, no government restriction - but programming is an extremal case of a natural monopoly, one program, the actually best one, will get a monopoly position. So, indeed, there have been monopolies. But they have not lasted long. In almost each domain of application, every three years there came a new programm much better than the old monopolist's one, and the old monopolist was forgotten almost immediately. Then came the governement - with software patents. From this time, the monopolists are the same. Microsoft, Google, Amazon and so on. The condition for survival on the software market is a big list of software patents, which allows you to forbid programming at all, and a sort of peace with those who have a similar large pool of software patents which could forbid you to programm too. No doubt, ideologies are stable, even more stable than states. But they become really dangerous only after they get the power in the state.