Inspired by a post (#458128) by @Undisciplined, I have a different set of questions for libertarians. Before jumping in, here is some context: I used to be a pretty ardent libertarian. I even led an econ club that brought in bob murphy to my university back in the day. I also wrote for a couple libertarian/free market facebook pages that had large followings (wish I was earning sats on some of those posts). I have since disassociated with libertarianism despite largely overlapping views.
- How can libertarians articulate that the benefit of eliminating all government is worth the risk?
People are risk averse. Going from big government to small is relatively low risk. Going from small government to no government is high risk. Given that most people are not enamored by the non-aggression principle, what is the route to making a convincing argument?
- Can a proper constitution that is carried out dutifully by a central government increase human flourishing?
I think there are market solutions for most things, if not all things, that the government does. I am opposed to the FDA, as an example. In theory, it would be easy for a private firm to fill this role. That said - I have some severe food allergies and knowing that there are regulations around that makes my life easier. I don't want to have to research every product I buy just to determine if I can trust their food label. The amount of time (costs) that this would take me could be enormous. And even if there is a firm that I trust, I have to be sure they maintain their integrity overtime. This is a small and potentially silly example, but if profits are the only thing regulating companies, I will spend a ton of time researching which companies I want to give my money to.
-
Is libertarianism - or maybe the non-aggression principle - a legitimate movement/principle if libertarians cannot agree on whether throwing a baby into the ocean ought to be a crime?
-
How can libertarians change the image that is conjured in people's mind when they hear the word libertarian?
A lot of people hear libertarian and they think of the people followed in the documentary-series the anarchists on HBO. This delegitimizes the movement more broadly.
5a) What can libertarians do now to make a highly limited government more feasible to the broader population?
Again, people are risk averse. Saying the market will find a solution is not likely to sway a bunch of people who might be worried about feeding their family. It might not be feasible for people who are comfortable and would need to risk that comfort.
5b) What needs to be done before an anarcho-capitalist society is feasible?
If the U.S. became an anarcho capitalist society tomorrow, it would be a global disaster that would ultimately lead to more government for everyone What needs to be done for that not to be the case?
5c) Is the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism path dependent?
How does the existence of giant corporations, criminal enterprises, and other things that thrive under the government inhibit the reasonability of eliminating the government? Sure, maybe if there never was a government giant corporations and criminal enterprises wouldn't exist. But they do exist and assuming they will just go away without the government doesn't seem feasible. Especially since things that are a function of their network size would be very difficult to disrupt (like social media).
Maybe solid answers exist, but back when I was getting into debates with libertarians the only answers I got were that the market would solve the problems.
As noted in a different post, my aim is not to debate anyone. I am legitimately interested in hearing different perspectives.