Originally Posted by Bill8

libertarians can't govern, there is no doubt of that. and the "official" platforms one sees are an exercise in the inability to govern.

but, libertarians wouldn't engage in wars of agression and adventure - which means pretty much all the wars of the last 50 years. the "war on drugs" would be shut down, as would the sex wars, marriage wars, and all the victimless crime persecutions.

under classic libertarian theory the weak would need less protection from the strong, because under classic libertarianism the primary role of government is to provide strong fair courts, unlike the plutocratic court system we have now. the theory is, strong courts and completely fair access to the rule of law makes the role of government as special protector of the weak (and the corruption that invites) irrelevant.

I'm sure the flaw in that concept is obvious - who makes the plutocrats give up their priviledged access to courts and government?

the type of libertarianism one commonly sees these days is a clownish caricature of classic libertarianism.

and classic libertarianism can't work, as I said, because it requires an educated populace.

If either party, the dems or the republicans, ended the wars on victimless crimes, and ended wars of adventure and military empire to support the multinational corporations, they'd have integrated enough libertarianism to satisfy most people.