[abigail95]

If the goal was to increase recycling and reduce legal costs, I would agree that seems like a failure but I can't see that being the case. Nor was the goal to reduce the number of sex offenders or homicides. It wasn't to increase the welfare of bears.

The goal was to move there and influence the government towards their own policies. The fact that all these problems showed up is a measure of their success.

If they were inept they would have caused the opposite thing to happen, Grafton would have become more restrictive and the bears stay in the woods.

It doesn't seem at all valid to critique someone for the amount of snow on the roads if they organised as a group specifically to remove snow plowing.

This is as ridiculous as measuring the original Woodstock by its sound quality, or available amenities. Are people who call it the best concert ever wrong? Are they allowed to have a different definition of success?

[TulliusCicero]

The libertarian argument is that libertarian policies will result in better outcomes, not "bear attacks are good, actually".

Maybe there are some who are like, "I don't care if bear attacks are way up, the point is that I can choose to be eaten by bears if I want", but for the most part they believe both that more 'liberty' is morally correct and also that it improves society in general.