I view libertarianism as the marriage between liberalism, and minarchy. A libertarian would seek to equally maximise the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to minimize the size of the state.

I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body -- I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.

What do you mean? I’m saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Yeah, that's what I just said that you said.

We already have restrictions on other government jobs about how old you can be.

For the sake of clarity, are you referring to the minimum age limits of U.S. government officials?

It’s not breaking new ground or saying anything new that Congress and other elected officials should not be able to serve in excess of 10 years.

My argument isn't that it should be avoided because of it's novelty, I'm saying that, in order to justify such rules, one must be of the belief that the voters are unable to determine the competency of who they elect. Given that a democracy is founded upon the idea of a government ruled by, of, and for the people, it is of paramount importance that the people be able to make such decisions for themselves.

Your example is fundamentally flawed. Plutonium on its own does not create the threat of a nuclear bomb -- plutonium is used in the manufacturing of nuclear bombs. The only threat of plutonium would be the levels of radiation that it would produce, as such, one would need to make sure that the plutonium is properly shielded in order to protect the public.

That being said, I do understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do agree with it -- if one looks at things through the perspective of the non-aggression principle, an argument could certainly be made that there exists examples of items whose mere existence is a threat to the safety of others. For example, stockpiling large amounts of fertilizer (e.g. ANFO), improper storage, and handling of dangerous pathogens, nuclear bombs, etc. These examples, by their mere existence, creates a threat to the livelihood those around it, as such, an argument could certainly be made that they should be regulated by law to ensure the safety of the surrounding public; however, in general, I do not see firearms as falling within this category, or, at the very least, it heavily depends on context. I would look at it from the perspective of whether or not the situation at hand constitutes reckless endangerment. For example, say you leave, unattended, a loaded firearm on a public bench. This could be argued to constitute reckless endangerment as the firearm could easily be accidentally discharged by an unassuming passerby -- since an item in the public domain could certainly be expected to be interacted with by a member of the public -- thereby creating a threat to the safety of others -- the individual whom is the owned of that firearm could thus be considered as responsible for endangering others. Another example would be leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a residence with children around. This could be argued as negligence for the safety of the child, and could be legally treated as such. However, if your firearm is in a location that, on its own, creates no immediate threat to the safety of others, and the only way for it to become unsafe if it is taken from that originally safe location by an individual who is not reasonably expected to interact with it -- e.g. theft, and trespass -- why should one be responsible for that outcome?

I would say that, for this example, an argument could be made that having a loaded firearm that is reasonably easily accessible to children could be defined as reckless endangerment, or negligence. I am generally in favor of punishing such behaviours; however, it should be noted that such a punishment is generally not at all black and white, so it should certainly be mostly left up to a jury.

When I said "responsible" I was meaning "held accountable by the law". Of course one should be stroring their firearms in a safe manner.

Im generally on the side of reposting for archival and continuation.

Unless an instance has been built with the intention of archiving information, I don't think that it should be automatically expected that an instance would be in favor of archiving posts from other platforms -- there already exists services that archive internet data, and they are better equipped to do so. An instance should outline in their rules whether or not they support such types of posts.

Is there an English version of the article?

Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one's wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.

I point you to this thread, and this thread for explanatioins from those who are more knowledgeable on the topic than I.

libertarians fly it without understanding it at all.

What? The Gadsden flag is, in effect, a symbol of Libertarianism.

The only flags that should be banned are those of enemy powers and traitors that the right wing loves to fly, such as the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag. Those two literally serve no purpose being flown in modern America because 1 was the flag of genocide and the other the flag of traitors and slavery.

Ignoring the fact that the 1st Ammendment would prohibit any such legislation from ever being passed, why ban hateful symbols? If the symbols are truly terrible, then the court of public opinion will handle it -- the solution to bad speech is better speech.