I found a perfect reponse on Reddit:
Note: he is responding to the argument "why don't you go to Somalia you stupid anarchist?"
As for Somalia, I simply respond this way: Give Somalia 10 years without foreign interference and then see what is happening? If the people of Somalia are left free of invasions from US Government supplied armies like what recently transpired in Yemen or free of drone strikes then we will see if anarchy really works. If I am right then do the same here and if you are right then I will agree with you. But obviously the statists know something is up and won't take my wager.
And I like your blame the victim line. I am being aggressed against so if I don't like it then I should leave?
The point behind the love-it-or-leave-it argument is really just to try to shut the other person up. Of course, literally saying "Shut up!" isn't seen by most people as a mature response. Nevertheless, a rose by any other name...
Here's a (hopefully) novel response: by the reasoning of love-it-or-leave-it, if you dislike anything about "where you live", then you should simply leave rather than try to change things "where you live". So for example, a person who holds the love-it-or-leave-it position should never complain about "the other guy" winning an election. In fact, by his reasoning, as long as he doesn't leave, he's implicitly and fully endorsing every person who gets elected. Oh, that's not what he meant by "Love it or leave it"? Then why did he say it?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Lew Rockwell puts the smack down on this argument.
"Or is there a simpler way to deal with it just then to laugh at it?"
I don't know, that's a pretty compelling answer to that question.
The best refutation is asking if Jews endorsed concentration camps by eating the food they were provided with, if peasant's accepted feudalism by continually farming for their lords, or if [insert subject's ideology/party here] supports a president of other ideologies by not revolting or leaving when he takes office
This is me when i hear this:
Then i stop arguing cuz i have nothing to say.
Now i know what to say.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
Are any of you in a strong enough financial position where you could leave if you wanted to?
The argument essentially attempts to equate the state with society, and tries to say that since you are against the state, you are also against society and should be removed from it. Pointing out that not only does the state not represent society, but that it is also inherently anti-social would be the most logical response, even if not the best answer rhetorically. Since you are in fact the one that is proposing a better means of achieving the ends of those living in said society, it is those who oppose this better order with violence who should leave.
Also, there isn't really anywhere that much different to emigrate to, so the argument is pointless. If there really was somewhere much better to go to, the state would try to prevent you from leaving its domain (and/or shut down the competition). The entire argument is like kidnapping someone and taking them up in a plane. 'If you don't like it, you can get out!"
Aristippus: Since you are in fact the one that is proposing a better means of achieving the ends of those living in said society, it is those who oppose this better order with violence who should leave.
So if I oppose your "better" order with violence should I leave?
If anyone, I mean. And also, I should note I wasn't talking about some revolutionary programme, but a development of societal institutions according to the values of those who make up society, rather than by the aggression of those who claim to represent those individuals, but necessarily don't.
bloomj31:Are any of you in a strong enough financial position where you could leave if you wanted to?
... Why do you ask?
Autolykos: ... Why do you ask?
Because I was thinking that people who are too poor to leave don't really have a choice but to stay and stick it out.
Obviously there are other reasons why libertarians might choose to stay as well but the reality that some people simply can't afford to move seems to be rarely mentioned.