I'm not sure it actually IS possible to be a consistent
'reactionary' or a consistent 'libertarian' because people
on these two 'opposite' sides end up making the same argument,
simply:

'They' or 'We' are aware of the consequences

As soon as 'reactionaries' and 'libertarians' use this argument
they become neither because there is then no discernable
difference between them.

A reactionary cannot stay a reactionary for long before they
end up advocating legalising blackmail and hard drugs-
because if 'they' are 'aware of the consequences' then 'we
are aware of the consequences'

Like I said, if all drugs, guns and porn are all legal it
is because 'we' are all 'adults' and can make up our own
minds (according to libertarians).

Because we are 'aware of the consequences'.

Just as all killers (even children or individuals
with personality disorders) are alwyas alleged to be
'aware' of the consequences and 'know' the difference
between right and wrong (according to reactionaries,
who, I might add, would balk at legalising drugs or
lowering the age of consent).

If killing people is wrong than allowing people to be killed is equally wrong.

Is it me or do the people who suggest the Bulger killers knew
the entire consequences of their actions* somehow remind me of
Ancaps or 'libertarian' types who favour the ready availability
of guns, drugs and pornography of all types and the 'legalisation'
of blackmail**.

Maybe too many people have been reading Nozic?

Anyhoo, Objectivism doesn't work: ask Einstein


*Which, if anyone who's read 'Dune' will know totally rules out
free will, maybe free will is only possible with total ignorance
of any consequences?

**Of course, if you asked me that is the only way that a free
market can work!!! Otherwise money or labour is always devalued.

(Money=a promise not to... etc which is exchanged for goods or
services)

Is it just me....

Or are so-called 'Individualist'/'Libertarian supporters
of 'Negative Liberty' nothing of the sort?

Negative Liberty always implies a common need, namely the
security of body, but negates every concievable INDIVIDUAL
need one can think of.

An Unregulated Economy

So....no bankers, capitalists or coppers

No bosses, landlords or judges

No tax-collectors

No legal parasites: political, landed or otherwise

No paid labour; only voluntarism
No greed and only need

Re-Humanising Stormtroopers

I think to expand on previous posts it would be best to give
my final (I hope!) opinion on the so-called 'Imperial Army'.

I think the most consistent description would, outside of
COMPNOR and the various 'trooper corps, describe the Imp Army
as being a very large engineering and armoured infrantry
(officer?) corps.

This is bascially suggested by the 'Olive uniform guy' on the
first Death Star and the various engineering/technical jobs
carried out by the ubiquitous Stormtroopers.

The original idea was for the Stormtroopers to all be clones,
but even if we take the assumption they may not be, their
anonymous uniforms seem to suggest a metaphor for the
de-humanising effects of war and authoritarian regimes.

Compare this to the (mostly Naval? I guess, not including
Moffs, I would count two 'Generals' in the entire trilogy)
way in which Imp officers faces are always shown: they are
the ones giving orders, they are the one's doing the
de-humanising.