It does work in real life. Burqa’s are not the ultimate criminal disguise- if that were the case everyone who engages in criminal activity would have one. I think the true issue is: When people do stuff you don’t like it makes you “alimentarius” uncomfortable, so that means everyone must subject themselves to your iron fist.
As opposed to what many libertarians tend to believe, not all humans are 100% rational. Even not criminals. But how do you know that some criminal doesn’t have one?
Do you see the irrationality of this statement? You suppose that a criminal can be prevented from having one and/or wearing one. Clearly the wearing of clothes is not a crime. I think this is rather petty attempt to cover your dislike of Islamic culture or to try and validate your criticism that women are being oppressed by wearing such attire, therefore causing you to use irrational examples of ill effects this clothing may induce by whatever hair brained theory you can contrive. You might as well be saying that the burqa causes a condensation of co2 gases from the inhabitant and that such condensation releases large swafs of gas into the air thereby making it harder to dissipate thereby exacerbating global warming.
Why would buying land in mountains be any different then buying land anywhere else?
If burqas were illegal, polic officers could force any criminal who wore one, to take it off.
Why would anyone choose to wear a prison voluntarilly?
Who owns the mountains today?
Well you can’t wear a prison.
And what crime would someone who is wearing a burqa be committing?
Lol? Are you just playing dumb or what? Do you live near mountains at all? I lived 9000 feet above sea level in the rockies for 7 years. I did so on my own property. 
I paid HOA fees to a private community, we maintained our own lake. stocked our own fish.
So I could ask the same question to you, who owns the flatlands?
What is this “public property in a libertarian society” you speak of? Btw, I don’t recommend wearing police clothes at the bottom of the sea.
Alimentrarius, I don’t mean to be condescending it’s just hard for me to take your question entirely seriously. If you had an isolated map of all of the mountains in our country a majority of it is owned privately. Area’s that are owned by government are stifling private ownership further, you see this all the time when various types of resorts are attempting to be built on public land, like Ski Areas.
If a part of the mountains is not owned by anyone why do you default to the right of government ownership? This stifles the chance of future entrapaneurs who might have new ideas for that land. There is interest for private ownership of mountainous land and government has only gotten in the way of it.
What crime would someone who is forced to stel be committing?
I think Islam is a bigger problem in Europe than in America. Libertarianism works when the society consists of rational people, but it stops working when a signifiacnt amount of them are religious fundamentalists.
Tell your question to go beat it. I’ve asked you plenty of questions that you haven’t answered. (What are you afraid of?) I see no reason why Laughing Man answer any of yours.
What is wrong with Islam?
You are arguing sidewasy with him. Obviously as a libertarian he’s not defending forcing anything. The difference between you and him. He is non-interventionist. He states that the women is free to wear what she please. You are interventionist and wish to dictate what females may not wear. So in actuality you are the one arguing force.
In a libertarian society females who don’t want to be forced to wear certain types of clothings will probably not merry men with those beleifs.
They do, in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
The biggest criminal in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan is the Islamophobe United States government.
In the US murderers always wear shoes. Perhaps we should BAN shoes.
You cannot tolerate intolerance.
How about passport pictures?