There is a big difference between
social libertarianism and
Libertarianism as a political movement.
I believe what most Libertarians
actually want is the social form, not the true governmental form.
A true, full Libertarian system would create a completely
laissez faire form of government. In essence, people and corporations would be allowed to essentially self-regulate, and would result in an almost "anything goes" system. We already have enough greed and corruption in corporate America. And, it would paralyze the court system even more than it already is. Libertarianism sounds like a good solution on the face of it, but over time it would create more problems than it would solve. The "little guy" would get screwed even more than he already is. If you look at the story of
Standard Oil back at the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century, you'll see a good example of a corporation running amok in a far more "Libertarian" government than we have now.
Social libertarianism, on the other hand, would be a much milder solution. It would remove the "big brother" aspects of our current government. It would make individual responsibility paramount, without removing the laws and potential penalties of, for example, corporations trying to form monopolies, etc. It would eradicate the penalties against victimless crimes. For instance, we wouldn't waste time, resources, and money trying to hunt down and convict drug dealers and prostitutes/Johns. It would finally acknowledge the Puritanical b.s. that governs many of our actions, and give respect to consenting adults. It would focus on individual choices and individual responsibility for those choices, instead of governmental/societal responsibility.
But, beware. This is a harsh, unforgiving system too. You gotta expect a lot of people are going to get swallowed by it, as they will, in essence, have free reign to do a lot of things that are not necessarily in their best interests over the long haul.
-copro
