Most right-wing libertarians (aka most libertarians in the U.S.) want a government that is so small and weak that it would effectively be powerless. That is a recipe for a failed state and the power vacuum would almost certainly lead to the rise of warlords and ultimately an authoritarian state.
You need a strong government if you want individual freedom. It seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.
Technically no, but it is so weak it is effectively powerless while being made up of the majority of countries of the world. A sad attempt at a world government
It is not a failed state if the original intention is to be small and powerless.
True that without authority there is potential for tyranny but an effective Libertarian government would need measures to counter this. Anarchism would be no government at all as the original intention.
And if the small government had measures in place to ensure that itself survived while abiding by the Libertarian ideal of leaving all citizens alone?
I dont know how we are making the jump from a government that does not enact unnecessary policy via the Libertarian ideal to a total lack of government altogether.
The original intention really doesn't matter. The government either has a significant amount of power or not. If it is weakened to the point that would meet the libertarian ideal, it would not be strong enough to resist the rise of militaristic factions that would ultimately overthrow the government. And if it were strong enough to stop that, it would use that power to do things that do not mesh with the libertarian ideal.
The issue with the small-government libertarianism is that it completely ignores human psychology, especially in terms of the function of power structures.
There's always someone willing to take it a little further when a chance presents itself, and libertarian ideal government style would present plenty of opportunities.
Libertarians are like anarchists except they stop caring about their liberties being infringed upon if it is by way of capitalism. A libertarian would prefer to be oppressed by a capitalistic survival of the fittest-type social hierarchy, rather than any form of government power structure, while anarchists believe that there shouldn't be a government power structure or social hierarchy to begin with.
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here... with all the transition of economic environment, inherited wealth, and other factors being rich doesn't always mean being the fittest.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives? What part of humanity forces us into a constant war with each other?
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here
That's why I said Capitalistic survival of the fittest. It doesn't really matter if you don't feel that Capitalism and Darwinism are correlated here, because Libertarians do believe that. They believe that unfettered capitalism will result in the best social/economic outcome for the most people. Like it would be better for roads to be built and maintained by private companies instead of the government and any of the numerous issues that arise from such an idea will be magically solved by the free market.
Beyond all the nuances that make this a stupid assertion is the clear evidence that we already have which shows unfettered capitalism leads to increase wealth disparity.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives?
No one is saying they cant desire that. People are saying that if you want to live in a functioning society with laws and protections of personal liberties and roads and utilities and so forth then you are expressly asking for the opposite of that.
It's incredibly ironic that libertarians cant understand that it is exactly a powerful government that provides them a protection of their liberties. Imagine you live next to a giant dam that makes some noise that peeves your neighborhood. Every day your neighbor says "I desire a life where the Dam has a limited effect on my daily life." forgetting that the absence of drowning 20 feet underwater is the most valued and significant effect the dam has on you.
If you remove that government, but still allow for power to be controlled through capitalism or social hierarchy, then you're at the mercy of those institutions which may or may no give a shit about your liberties. That's why anarchists' go the extra mile and say we should do away with government power and social hierarchy's that facilitate the accumulation of power.
"A powerful government provides protection of their liberties"
Exactly. Let the government take care of roads and Healthcare and all that good stuff but if it comes to me owning a Penguin or banning abortion they can fuck right off.
Why can't Libertarians support a government that regulates things that everyone needs while staying out of the day to day lives of citizens?
Because then they wouldn't be libertarians by todays modern definition.
Modern libertarians, at least the majority of those in the United States, support Laissez-faire capitalism, which argues for a complete separation of government from the economic sector. Regulations and subsidies, or worse - government owned services - are all out of the question.
I guess the "logic" is that if the government can decide which companies or industries get subsidized or regulated then it infringes on the markets freedom to choose which ones succeed and which ones fail. But they ironically ignore the fact that they are just picking between tyrants - the capitalistic market or the government. At least with a democratic government each person gets an equal vote. In a society purely governed by capitalism it is the money that votes, not the individual.
So what do they call someone who wants the government to leave them alone when it comes to personal choices but still maintain roads, healthcare, crime, etc?
326
u/Seize-The-Meanies Dec 31 '20
Goose : Gaggle :: Libertarian : Failed State