Even though Barack Obama unintentionally is doing a good job of recruiting more people to the libertarian philosophy, that doesn’t mean I’m optimistic that we will achieve libertarian Nirvana in my lifetime.
Libertarian Man of the Year?
I’m even willing to admit that part of the problem is that libertarians (like me!) tend to be a strange breed and we occasionally rub people the wrong way. Needless to say, this sometimes makes it difficult to gain new converts.
So when people say libertarianism is unrealistic, that may be an accurate political prediction. I can respond by pointing out reasons why I think it’s possible to reduce the burden of government and make people more free, but there’s no doubt that it’s difficult to make substantial progress against the combined forces of bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, interest groups, and dependents.
That being said, there are some arguments against libertarianism that are very weak. Consider what Michael Lind just wrote for Salon.
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines? …If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
Lind actually answers his own challenge by noting that libertarians point to the superior performance of nations that are more free than others.
I’ve done that myself by comparing the United States with the European Union. Or Chile with Argentina and Venezuela. Or South Korea and North Korea. Or Singapore and Hong Kong with the United States.
Anyhow, you get the point.
But Lind would like readers to think it’s somehow illegitimate to judge libertarianism by comparing libertarian-leaning nations with statist-leaning nations.
But he doesn’t offer any legitimate rationale for this restriction. Why do we need a perfect libertarian society to make judgements about libertarianism, any more than we need pure socialism or communism to draw conclusions about those statist societies?
International Liberty 
I’m not sure what a “perfect libertarian society” would be. There have certainly been societies with high levels of economic freedom — like the United States up to the 1930s, Britain under Queen Victoria, ancient Israel under the judges, etc. Of course any example you can pick will have elements of government control. I suppose that by the same reasoning you could say that democracy has never been tried, because every society that called itself democratic still had some number of appointed office holders, and some number of powerful and wealthy families who could be considered an aristocracy. For that matter, using medicine to treat diseases has never been tried, because for every disease there have always been some number of people who tried exercise and healthy diets and positive thinking in addition to or instead of medicine. Etc, one could easily rattle off dozens of equally silly examples. More fundamentally, though, the argument is that because the enemies of an idea have succeeded in preventing its implementation, this proves that it’s a bad idea. I fail to see the logic in that.
Dan, while I agree in principle about realistic expectations, I have to take exception to the whiny, defeatist and all-too-common-among-Libertarians attitude in your opening lines. If there was ever an opportunity for Libertarians politically, it’s right now. Since Edward Snowden dropped his NSA-bomb the Republicans have been in shock and awe, the Democrats have been divided, lost faith in their Messiah, and they’ve both been unable to neatly hammer the fallout into their usual Left vs Right narrative.
In short, Libertarians of all stripes, right down to the half-crazy, Alex-Jones-watching, tinfoil-hat-wearing nuts have some cred now, and the underlying importance of Civil Liberties and the Constitution is in everyone’s faces in an unprecedented I-told-you-so moment. We’ve got them on the ropes and it’s time to go for the throat. The timing couldn’t be more perfect, not only because of the ongoing gut-pummelling the Obama Administration and Big Government statists have been getting since, but because they were already punch drunk from the blows they’d already taken prior – like the IRS Scandal, etc. Meanwhile the Liberty Movement is in great form and just catching a second wind.
Sure we’re still punching above our weight class, but you couldn’t hope to be in a better position, and for the types that believe in an impending Orwellian dystopia it could be the best shot you ever get. But it seems like Libertarians have been so used to being the proverbial voice in the wilderness they don’t seem to know how to handle the opportunity. Many continue to drone on in the same resigned perfunctory tone they’re used to, ironically one of learned helplessness.
Now I figure the way Libertarians roll we’re unlikely to have anything prepared, similar to how the Democrats have anti-gun legislation sitting in a desk drawer while they gleefully await the next mass shooting, but maybe we should. Not more mindless legislation/regulation of course, but maybe someone over at Cato should have some kind of plan for switching gears.
Just sayin’.
PS. I also take exception to the idea that Libertarians rub people the wrong way. That really rubbed me the wrong way so much I almost unsubscribed. I know I sure don’t, and anyone who doesn’t like it can go shove their head in a bucket of gasoline and set fire to it.
We would suggest getting familiar with the work at http://www.libertarianinternational.org as a start for people like Lind…
Many of these people quoted seem to be knowledgeable on Lib goals or pledged Libertarians.
less government… lower taxes… more personal and economic freedom… and a return to strict constitutional governance… that seems like a good starting point for libertarians… and there is nothing in those positions that substantial numbers of Americans would find unacceptable… but continue to expect preemptive attacks from the establishment media… they are spooked… the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people is not going well… the last decade has been a disaster for statists and they are frightened… democrats and republicans… are just are not doing a good job… and Americans are starting to look around for serious alternatives to the status quo… expect statists in the media and government to say mean things about libertarians… it indicates libertarian philosophy is gaining ground…. it’s good news… and the more they squawk and crow… the more effective the presentation has been… yeah libertarians are creepy… but so are democrats and republicans… just look at the above pic of Barack Obama… he looks remarkably like “Gollum” from the new hobbit flick…………………………….. now that’s creepy….
Good afternoon Dan! Just wanted to see if you had a chance to read Tom Woods response to Lind, you might enjoy that. I don’t have the link handy but he posted it recently on tomwoods.com
Always a pleasure reading your work!
Take care,
Sent from my iPhone
By parallel to Lind’s argument, we could have, at some point early in history, argued that a republic could not be considered a succesful way to organize a nation-state because there were none currently in existence.
We all wonder where that zero derivative point is on the Rahn Curve.
There is no percentage in libertarianism for the rent seekers.
I was shocked to discover (via James Taranto’s Best of Web for the WSJ) that it was Milton Freidman who was responsible for the notion of with-holding taxes from paychecks.
So many of our current problems can be laid at the feet of the statists and their efforts to win WWII, the juggernaut that was born should have been dismantled after the war was won.
It proved too tempting and now we still wrestle with the consequences.