Libertarians are often dismissed as being overly idealistic. Critics compare the vision of a world free of government to an unrealistic utopian vision, impractical, and unlikely to work.
While dismissing the principled views of libertarian thinkers as unrealistic they don’t realize that the policy’s they support are based on idealistic views of the institutions in our society.
The libertarian position on government is that it is incompatible with human nature. A group of people that form the government with the power to avoid justice and exploit society for their personal benefit will naturally be self-interested. The self-interest of those in power will result in harmful and parasitical consequences for society. Since the state is incompatible with human nature is it possible that society would function well without the state?
The position of those who support the state is to deny the reality of institutional problems. They attribute the problems of government to problems of people. They imagine a world where the state isn’t occupied by self-interested humans, but by noble beings with moral perfection (and that agree with their political views). They deny human nature and the failure of policies they supported, and attribute the failure to people, not institutions.
Which viewpoint is truly idealistic?
The one that supports removing failed institutions?
Or the view that the institutions which have failed over and over again will be saved by the right politician coming along?
Leave a Reply