Libertarianism seems like the perfect union of unapologetic cynicism and naiveté: it's as if suspicion of the Fed and resentment over taxation excuse a quaint optimism about the free market.
The unfamiliar often hold such views based upon their fear of losing the comfort & security of the nanny state. But lucky for you, I'm here to help.
There's no reason to apologize for cynicism....tis central to us to distrust giving great power to government. People are greedy, mean, stupid,
power hungry & incompetent (among other things), so we favor having a smaller government with limited function. Preserving civil, social &
economic liberty are our goals. Generally, we would minimize the risks of governmental mischief by keeping it small, minimizing its financial
burden, & limiting its power by observing a strong constitution. I note that you're quick to use dismissive epithets like "naivete" & "quaint",
but they would also apply to your side of this dispute. We've lived with leftist & neo-con big government for a very long time now, & it ain't
work'n too well. Yet people keep expecting that pursuing the same failed policies over & over again will yield different results. Is that sane?
But as I've been shown over and over again, Libertarianism is always exactly what its adherents say it is, and never anything that can be criticized.
Who is stopping you from criticizing? Certainly this humble minarchist.
Maybe a Libertarian could explain to me, let's just say for example, how we could avoid catastrophes like the BP oil spill in a Libertarian utopia, when it was the absence of responsible government regulation that allowed the disaster to happen in the first place.
The ideal role of regulation is to manage problems which cannot be addressed in tort. Example: If I sell a house on land contract to a buyer who
fails to make the payments, then I can sue for foreclosure & be made whole. The BP oil rig is a different matter because some activities have
ill consequences which are so devastating & costly, that it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to be fully compensated for damage. Especially
in the area of protecting the environment, I see it as very libertarian to prevent others from suffering the effects of oil in our waters, mercury
in the air we breathe, lead in our soil, etc, etc. It is an important civil liberty to breathe clean air & drink pure water. As I see it, we need far
better regulation of oil rigs such as the one you mentioned....one which Obama gave a safety award just prior to the gaffe in the gulf. But I
oppose regulation which has costs greater than its benefits, & can be left to plaintiffs & defendants in the courts.