Most people reject libertarianism - be it minarchism or anarchism - because certain ends they consider important are not achieved in their opinion. In the last days I read an article about “green libertarianism” and thread dealing with particular ends pop up every few days, i.e. poverty, environment, racism.
In this thread should not be argued about how certain services are provided in an libertarian society but how certain ends are better achieved, i.e. ending poverty. I think this is a great way to popularize libertarian thought, because most people I talked to object not to freedom as is but to its assumed consequences.
The problem with libertarianism (or maybe the good thing about libertarianism depending on your viewpoint) is that it tends to take a universalist approach to solving problems whereas most people seem to like particularist solutions. For example, they don’t want to end poverty with a system that helps to raise all boats albeit disproportionately, they want to level everyone out so there are no spectacular results, but everyone is basically assured the same outcome. Hope that makes sense.
Sure, people want to have particularist solutions to particular problem, but the list should help proving that non-particular solution lead to the exact same or even better than hoped for ends. Granting everyone the same outcome is a basic outcome of a free market, as stated above, in other words solving poverty.
No, I don’t think ANYONE can solve poverty. It’s really an impossible task imo. Government can always give handouts but a handout does not a solution to poverty make.
I think what I’m trying to say here is that impossible tasks are impossible and that no system is going to fix them.
But there are still lots of awesome things that libertarianism CAN do and DOES offer and I think that they have merit even if they’re not the cure for poverty.
I would say the main one is the foundation of libertarianism; the NAP. Even if you don’t fully agree with it, it’s a nice starting point for any school of thought because it basically puts a zero tolerance policy on the use of coercion as a means to achieve any given end and that’s a solid foundation imo.
That misconceive the issue. “Resort to the market” isn’t one big “approach”. It’s just a name given to a complex of innumerable approaches to innumerable problems.
I think this way of thinking is exhibited when people say the Austrian solution to the business cycle is “do nothing”. That only makes sense if you think of the only entity that can “do” things is government. The malinvestments in a business cycle are innumerable problems that are solved by innumerable agents “doing” innumerable things, which, in aggregate we give the somewhat misleading name, “the market correcting itself”.
It is statolatry that has the universalist approach, and the market that is particularist.
No, even the most egalitarian partisan would not profess to find a dismally low general level acceptable. They say that the lower strata would be much better off under their system. They are wrong. Proving them wrong is a matter for disputation over means, not ends.