Why Does Atheism and Left-Wing Politics Usually Go Together?

[Something completely different]

On security nets:
You're right in that there is a lot of opposition to most of what government does, but the proposed solutions are often more sophisticated than to simply 'abolish all of it'. After all, what is to be done with people who have paid into it their whole lives and are now dependant on it? What about children? Those who enter adulthood with severe illnesses? I believe Ron Paul was talking about wanting to allow people to opt out of social security, rather than simply 'abolishing all of it'.

So would you simply abolish a security network after all it`s users have past away, after previously forbidding to newly join in?
I can assume that people who enter adulthood with servere illness will almoust certainly join a social security network - but what if theoreticaly all those who could opt-out and are in good healt (meaning: pay more in, than recieve) would opt out, wouldn`t that leave a bankroupt system wich couldn`t provide the nececery care wich some desperatly need? That would then automaticaly lead to it`s abolishemnt and leave those in need on the road? A percentage of a sociaty of each nation is poor or ill and I do believe that if it were only optional to help those it woud almoust certainly result in the noninterest to help, by those who aren`t that bad off.
What would be your solution for those who have opt-out and fall ill but cannot afford the nececery care? (I assume you have been asked this question very frequently)
What about social responsibility? I have very frequently heared the argument that a social network leads to public lazyness - before that comes up i`d like to state that:
In Germany with have pubic healthcare system - wich requires people to work in order to gain it`s benefits - if you have been unemployed for more than 3 years and in that time rejected jobproposals recieved, you opt-out of social healthceare. (strawman not intended)

Our social network is designed as a saftynet - you are incouraged to work, make a new contract with a other insurance company and basicaly live your life as independant as possible. Should your life enter severe diffulties through healthissues, poverty or other the saftynet is supposed to catch you before you hit sociatys rockbottom.

Certainly, the more extreme you get, the more of government would want to cut, 'Minarchy' I believe is just national defence as well as law and order. It's pretty much as far as you can go (except for anarcho-capitalism, they are the ones who want rid of all government). It would be a mistake to lump all the libertarians into one group and say they all want absolutely none of something. Lots would advocate for reductions (perhaps drastic reductions), rather than outright abolishment of many services.

When confronted with the carricatur i stated that I "assume" that that is how all libertariens were like, I generaly dont use assumptions for political arguments but try to come to facts on wich base I can make an argument.
So I did not "throw all libertarians into a bag" (strawman from your side probably not intended). The libertariens I have been confronted with is the german libertarian party of wich I have a claer opinion on - but refused to judge all on behalf of them.
If you want to further the debate on the base of your personal liberterian opinion:
Can you explain to me wich parts of deffense and law and order you would like to cut? I am generaly not satisfied with simple statements.

Libertarians actually do want SOME government services, including the defence of the nation, protecting individuals from aggression and fraud, and the court system.

So in short: the basic things wich differ us from Somalia?