Issues with the Libertarian Philosophy

First, I am not an expert on the Libertarian philosophy. An easy way to 'defeat' an idea is to paint a weaker picture than actually exists. In an effort to avoid this happening inadvertently, and to be completely transparent, I went to the CATO Institute for the system of beliefs and definitions.  In addition, there are many different kinds of Libertarians and so some of these arguments may not apply to all readers.

As put forth by the CATO Institute, there are nine main pillars to the Libertarian philosophy:

1. Individualism
2. Individual Rights
3. Spontaneous Order
4. Rule of Law
5. Limited Government
6. Free Markets
7. Virtue of Production
8. Natural Harmony of Interests
9. Peace

I believe that most Conservatives will agree with the definitions and ideas behind the first two pillars: the individual should be responsible for his or her choices in life and rights are intrinsic to the individual instead of being granted by a benevolent government.  Most Conservatives, and even some liberals, do not believe the government should be subsidizing the poor choices of others; that opportunities should be the focus instead of outcomes.  The issue starts at pillar 3.

Spontaneous order is where the philosophy starts to become vague.  Which levels of government would be modified/removed (details please)?  What is the perceived reactions to these changes?  Are there entities in society currently breaking law even with a system in place to catch them?  Will order 'spontaneously' result once that system of 'oppression' has been removed?  Wasn't the time period heralded by the CATO Institute one of barbarity and lawlessness?  Is it possible to add one more question to this paragraph?

Most often the response is that the above objections do not give any government the right to take what another has earned.  If you mention something along the lines of 'social contract' then they ask you to show them where they have signed as if every newborn or eighteen-year-old is asked for their input and then assigned to a society which perfectly matches what they are willing to agree to.  To flip this on its head, is the governmental structure that we have now not Libertarian on a local, state, and national scale?  Have we not voted for people who have our values to represent us?  Another angle, if we imagine a libertarian system where the local community is the highest level of government, could someone not validly argue that they are being oppressed if the community has agreed to a standard they personally do not believe in?

Is there a difference between a public good and a commodity?  The police, national guard, and military would be public goods while free phones, medical, and welfare are commodities.  One set is listed within the Constitution while the other is an overreach by government and does enter the domain of thievery. 

The fourth pillar, Rule of Law, seems to attempt to clarify the previous but is superbly insufficient.  For convenience sake, this is the fourth tenet:

Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Do we not already have a "society of liberty under law?"  The institute defines this as a society which individuals are free to do what they want as long as they respect the equal rights of others.  Can I currently, according to the Constitution, violate someone's rights?  There's the 'spontaneous' word again... who has developed these legal rules?  What is meant by "arbitrary commands?"  Is a Libertarian society going to be one in which crooked officials no longer exist?  Isn't this how current laws are circumnavigated?  With people in power abusing that power?

I have seen some argue that this would refer to gay, abortion, and drug topics.  I think that most Conservatives would argue that that scenario is how the country is supposed to work - States should have a much larger say in what goes on than they currently do, at least in issues like gay marriage and drugs.  As for abortion, that becomes a matter of life and death and so is argued to not be a Libertarian hands-off policy but rather one which enters the domain of the State.

Pillar five, again vague, basically outlines the original setup of the federal government.  There are three branches which are a checks upon each other and constricted by the Constitution.  It has now become a system which allows anything to happen which has not been forbidden by the Constitution (and that is eroding as well) with the three branches ignoring the others.  This means there needs to be a reset instead of a demolition of the Constitution with power going to whomever is able to grasp it at the local level.  You want a system which can be easily controlled by the rich?  Advocate for this incarnation of Libertarianism.

Pillar six is one that every Conservative should be able to support.  Unfortunately, too many want to force their idea of what is right onto everyone else.  You want to open a shop?  You have to jump through these dozen hoops.  You want to be a day trader?  You've got to have 25k in the account before you can move more than five round trip transactions within a week or we'll put a freeze on your account for a few months.  These types of regulations are what stifles business and wealth creation and one reason for President Trump's two regulations gone for every new one passed.

Pillar seven is so close to being a great Libertarian tenet but utterly fails due again  to vagueness.  Does the national military count in those described as "parasites" and '"non-producers?"  I think that one would have to say yes based on what has been laid out so far.  This could be taken to mean that all government should be abandoned, that government should be much smaller, or some other governmental change.  It seems written in a way to pull those people who are 'against the man' without telling them exactly, or even roughly, what shape the new system would take.

Pillar eight is absolute and complete bullshit:

Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person’s individual plans — which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on — may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

"If you would only give Libertarianism a chance, everyone would be peaceful and love one another!"  No, the snakes would still be snakes.  Instead of trying to influence government to give them the advantage, they would be partnering up with the local power.  This is why I love the sentiment behind making government small.  There's a saying that I can't remember enough of to find on google.  It roughly says that lobbyists lobby because government is powerful.  If instead government was weak, no one would lobby because it would be a waste of time and resources.

The last pillar, number nine, is again vague.  This would seem to hint at the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) without actually listing it by name.  This principle is basically pacifism but it adds the possibility of forceful defense.  This means that you must first be transgressed before you can take any action - even threats of action.  This could be interpreted to say that if the attack on Pearl Harbor had never happened, we should not have entered the war to stop Hitler.  There are other objections listed here.

I simply do not get the purpose of the Libertarian movement.  If it is only about limiting government, push for it to move back to the original intent: three branches constrained by the Constitution.  Since this is not what they strive for, it seems to imply that they are after a lot more - a total removal of government, a complete trust in the benevolence of foreign powers, and the inherent goodness of the country's citizens when all 'coercive' forces have been removed.  As stated at the beginning, it is very possible, and even likely, that my understanding of the philosophy is inadequate and as a result, a misrepresentation.  This is one major reason for the post.  I have long considered myself to be a Libertarian... until I actually looked into what I am supposed to believe.