When I first entered politics, libertarianism immediately jumped out to me as sensible and just…right. I was never a conservative or a liberal in the modern sense or other variations prior to libertarianism. I just came straight to it as soon as I became politically and socially conscious. Which is just kinda interesting to me and worth its own post that I just attached myself to it so readily.
Nevertheless, libertarians, generally, believe in limited government. That the free market is best able to serve the needs of human beings from health care to the roads to the iPhone and so on. However, there are exceptions: courts, police, military and just generally speaking, the enforcement power over settling disputes (fraud, contracts and the like).
But this ought to immediately strike one as suspect. If one’s entire foundation for rejecting big government involvement on the basis of the free markets being better suited to the activity, then ought it not follow, too, that free markets are better able to deliver courts, police and settle disputes? Why should those be exceptions in the formulation?
Moreover, as point of the fact, the areas where government is the worst are these sacred cows of the limited government formulation, i.e., courts, police and the military in terms of bureaucracy, injustice and harm to innocents.
Therefore, you either believe in the force of government to accomplish good (and if they can do this with courts, police and the military, then why not education, health care and the labor market?) or free markets and voluntary exchange to best bring us these services.
This is not me trying to be reductionist to an either/or; it’s just, there’s no logical way to sit in the middle, as I see the logical ends take you to expanded government or anarchism.