Why? Libertarians think gov't is needed for certain institutions like an army, or a justice system.
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...
*fixed, thank you kind sir
I'll crawl back into my hole now. :)
Seriously, libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement they are involved in.
For example, I frequently hear liberals say that if libertarianism were pushed to its logical extreme, you'd end up with Somalia. For some reason, liberals are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it pushed to its extreme.
US modern liberalism, on the other hand, has basically no pure ideological component other than beliefs in humanistic morals, pragmatism and empiricism. (And, of course, pandering from politicians). Most of us really distrust overly strong ideologies, so that's what we poke fun at. Liberalism isn't the opposite of libertarianism in terms of ideology, we're not in favor of nationalizing industries, it's the opposite where we don't think there's a one-size fits-all narrative to define everything.
I only ever see that in discussions where libertarian participants attack every criticism drawn from real-world experience with "but, that's only because of government, but in a real libertarian system, that wouldn't happen".
> For some reason, liberals are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it pushed to its extreme.
Except in the real world, where conservative arguments often start with some caricature of what leftist ideology pushed to an extreme would be presented as exactly what everyone even mildly to the left of them actually wants, at a minimum, and immediately. (And, yes, the reverse happens from liberals to conservatives frequently, too.)
I try to split beliefs between small-l libertarianism for what I believe (which is not ideologically pure), and capital-L Libertarianism for the party platform. It's the only way to reconcile liberals and conservatives with their presumptive parties, though Libertarians, not having won anything, aren't as compromising.
Well, it helps that liberals are not leftists. "Leftist" begins at social democracy (think of Elizabeth Warren) and goes from there.
Because they keep espousing positions that have proven to be terrible ideas. They forget about history, and why things like government regulations came about.
Not all but some libertarians are arguably more familiar with history, because they understand the degree to which regulation historically has been twisted (generally: to screw over the poor), wheras their detractors have been sold the line that exists to defend the status quo on any given regulation.
Your post doesn't make sense to me at all. What is this about levels of being an anarchist? I'm an anarcho-capitalist, basically, which is quite different than the typical leftist "anarchists".
>Seriously libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement they are involved in.
Kind of a pointless remark don't you think? I'm pretty well-versed in the history of libertarian anarchism and lest-"anarchism".
Libertarianism was strongly rooted on the far left for a long time - Lenins "Left Communism - An infantile Disorder" was aimed at libertarian Marxists, for example.
The "modern" right wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block.
Now if only my In-Laws that just spout out whatever Glen Beck says with mixed in "small governemnt" people say gets them to believe liberty is best experienced in Anarchy :)
But that's not the point: most "libertarians" seem to believe that the ostensible usefulness of the nanny state can be eliminated by people choosing to do good and engaging in market activity with others who do good.
So profiting from something that's so evil is, to this way of thinking, counter-libertarian.