I wouldn’t call myself a new libertarian. I’ve claimed that term on and off since 2007, but only within the last year have i actually accepted it’s premise. The true blue libertarians tend to use the non aggression principle to convert the soul searching skeptics. It worked on me, so clearly there is merit there. But the non aggression principle, in my most recent attempts to convert, has just been passed off as “philosophical melodramatic nonsense”. The individuals who perceive it this way generally concede its a valid stance, but that its entirely unrealistic for a “society”. Stemming from that last assumption, “unrealistic for a society”, I’d like to propose a different way about it.
Many people use roads, schools, or police to identify problems with the idea of ending coercion via taxation or State control. Despite the fact that these services or products can be provided by other more voluntary means, which they already are, there’s another problem with this line of thought. It assumes that life in the statist society will continue as planned without the slightest change. That’s a lot to assume, considering that markets have shifted as recently as 2008 and have done so over and over again for the last… Well since the birth of this country. Since the birth of any country for that matter.
What does libertariansim offer by lobbying for free markets? It offers a more realistic economy. Because of fiat currency and government intervention in markets, the economy bubbles up and shortly there after pops. Instead of businesses failing, the government doubles down and involves itself even further by bailing out these failed businesses. This only prolongs the bust, creating an even larger bubble that will have dire consequences on an already debtor nations economy. Libertarianism can remedy this problem by destroying the systems that prolong these consequences and establishing the natural exchanges that is a true free market economy.
The longer the statist allows this bubble to grow via coercive and ignorant economic policy, the greater the likelihood of a complete economic depression in which vast American jobs markets will be destroyed. Education of course can never he funded if the government no longer has any capital to take from broke businesses. To continue this system, in essence, is to doom nearly an entire generation of students to a life without any formal education. (Of course I’m ignoring the fact that families tend to educate their own in the abscence of traditional schooling but nonetheless, the argument is upon the statist)
These policies can continue and chances are, the government will find ways to increase its ill gotten revenues… But at what cost? Of course this approach is acknowledging that a statist paradigm cannot continue if the market is not freed, and the market cannot be freed without removing the statist paradigm… But its a conundrum for the statist, not the libertarian. This is a system perpetuated by the belief in the state and one that will eventually end it. The onus is on your target to decide whether to end it now and help create the alternative, or continue this path to the biggest collapse of coercive “services” the world has ever seen.