Libertarianism is saying “Just let me do what I want and everything will work out great!”
The other word for that is Anarchy.
Like Communism, it relies on Humans not being Humans, which makes it fantasy.
Libertarianism is limited government, not anarchy. the purpose of government is twofold:
- to protect the weak from the strong taking their stuff or their life by force
- to provide public goods that can only be provided by the community acting together
I think a case can be made that a government that tries to do more than that not only is inappropriate, but actually causes the deprioritization of the essential functions. and sure enough, we have a great entitlement system but we’re not so great at keeping people from getting victimized by predators and our infrastructure isn’t that great either. And as our population ages, entitlements become more and more important and government’s essential functions become less and less of a priority. Which old people will regret when the few young people are randomly mugging them and all elderly folks have to protect themselves with is the onion in a bag they bought at the store.
The problem is this is where most people, including even most ardent “big government” leftists fall*. It’s just that what exactly you believe falls under 1 and 2 varies wildly between different groups.
Especially things like affirmative action. Its opponents see it as a violation of these principles, and its proponents see promoting economic equality as an avenue to achieving 1.
The problem with the complexity and scale of human society is that while “everybody should have boundless freedom, except where it infringes on others freedoms” is a good tagline, there are all sorts of pernicious, subtle ways in which people exercising their freedoms can marginalize others’ livelihoods.
- In largely Anglosphere and Western civilizations where “freedom” is a virtue. I’m sure in more collectivist societies people may be less likely to frame the role of government in this way.
Oh certainly, there are going to be disagreements over what is a proper government intervention and what is not. Among libertarians, abortion is such an issue. If an unborn human is a person, then they must be protected. If not, then the rights of the woman must be protected.
There are also debates about what constitutes a legitimate infrastructure project and over what law enforcement methods are acceptable. Libertarians tend to be more leftish on law enforcement questions even though they regard protecting the innocent as a core government job.
adaher: It seems to me that protecting the innocent elderly from living longer than they are economically useful is a core function of civilization.
Since commerce can’t do it, and they can’t do it, at least not for all of them, that problem falls squarely to government under your rule 2.
“Work or Die” is not the motto of a successful civilization.
True only if you define the strong as the private sector. The main purpose of modern government is to be the only force as strong as business and to prevent or mitigate its rapaciousness. (Protection from foreign invasion is obviously real but extremely secondary on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis.)
Libertarians want to prevent government from doing its primary activity. That is an axiom, and leads to a geometry that doesn’t apply to our world. It cannot be modified or reconciled. The result is anarchy.
This demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of libertarians very succinctly. The fact that there’s even a question of whether or not to force a woman to act as a human incubator as punishment for having sex really makes the idea of putting the world ‘liberty’ in the name of the movement. But on issues about supporting other people when it doesn’t involve abusing the bodies of poor women, libertarians resoundingly agree that it’s absolutely terrible. School lunches, food stamps, welfare, and public schools are all awful examples of the State enslaving good free men and destroying their lives, but forcing a woman to carry a child in her body is just A-OK, or at least not a big enough issue to argue about.
That’s a very good argument. But it is resource dependent and has to fit in with other priorities.
The government actually does pretty well at preventing business abuses. Street crime is the challenge because it’s very resource dependent(you need people physically in the area), and dangerous. But I do think more people are concerned about getting robbed at the ATM than being abused by ATM fees, or even overdraft fees(which the Obama administration fixed).
I’m very unsympathetic to libertarianism as an ideology but if one adopts the pro-life position that personhood starts at conception, then it logically follows that even if one believes in “minimal government”, they think by fulfilling the government’s basic function of protecting life and property, it should restrict abortion. If it makes you feel any better, a good number of libertarians have taken a similar strongly pro-choice position including Ayn Rand-in fact besides her general autism and special snowflake obsession, it was her dislike of being lumped in with pro-lifer that led her to declare she wasn’t a libertarian. Of course, I’m a left-wing pro-lifer so I love both fetuses and universal social welfare. 
Plus there’s differences in when a fetus becomes a person. I think the vast majority of us believe a fetus is a person in the third trimester, which is why in most places you can’t get an abortion in the third trimester unless your life is at stake. I personally, draw the line at the end of the first trimester.
That’s the most annoying aspect I find among many libertarians; the idea they have that they know The Truth. The rest of us are either blinded by our conditioning (which they have broken free of) or are afraid to admit we agree with them (because we’re not as brave as they are).
They can’t accept that some people have taken a rational considered look at libertarianism and decided it’s not a good idea.
To me, the primary virtue of libertarianism is that it gives you a rationale for your views. Libertarians can disagree on where the logic of their philosophy leads, but at least they can agree that there is a philosophy at the root. Liberals and conservatives tend to adopt a rather nonsensical view that things they like should be legal and things they don’t like shouldn’t be.
I disagree.
To the degree that libertarians stand for anything, they stand for the idea that government should only exist at the bare minimum. The problem is that’s the same belief that everyone has. Libertarians will say “We only want the amount of government necessary to defend universal values like property rights and preventing people from harming other people. Anything beyond that, like environmental regulations and drug laws, is unnecessary and the government shouldn’t be doing it.”
But then a conservative will come along and say “You’re absolutely right. Well, mostly, but you got a few details wrong. We only want the amount of government necessary to defend universal values like stopping sexual deviance and defending America and its allies from military attacks. Anything beyond that, like welfare and affirmative action, is unnecessary and the government shouldn’t be doing it.”
And then the liberal comes along and says “I’m in full agreement with you guys. Just as soon as we straighten out a few mistakes. We only want the amount of government necessary to defend universal values like preventing racial discrimination and making sure nobody is starving to death or living in the streets. Anything beyond that, like telling people what they can do with their bodies or who they can marry, is unnecessary and the government shouldn’t be doing it.”
Each group has a different set of what they regard as universal values. And each group thinks it’s okay for the government to impose these universal values - even on the people who don’t agree with them.
I think we should limit libertarianism as much as possible.
Don’t worry, the folks in Washington are always trying to limit your rights. All you need to do to make sure they keep up the good work is nothing.
In Scandinavia, the law allows people to travel across property belonging to other people without seeking permission. They’re even allowed to camp overnight on somebody else’s property as long as they don’t cause any damage.
So Scandinavians have a right to travel on other people’s property. That right doesn’t exist in the United States. Do you feel the government is harming us by denying us this right?
You’ve never talked to an actual live libertarian, have you?
And are you now admitting that after all these years of presenting yourself as a principled conservative you’ve really been a libertarian all along?
Gosh. You’d almost think that we shouldn’t believe anything you’ve ever said.
No, I’m not going to vote for Gary Johnson or any libertarian. I will, however, meet you halfway and vote for legalization of Pot or gambling. But I want heavy government regulation on industries because they cannot be trusted to provide for the public good by themselves, and I want punishment for companies that put profit before people. I don’t want to give business owners free reign to do what the market deems most profitable because I don’t want pure profit to be a motivation for anyone. I want a public right of benefit, to be provided by companies and government, with profit being secondary. Can you say any libertarian believes that?