[dpatru]

> It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.

Libertarianism maintains that government is not supposed to solve all your problems. That is the job of the free market: voluntary associations and mutually-beneficial transactions. Government's role is to secure the liberties that underlie the free market.

When politicians offer to "solve" people's problems, they are usually offering to steal for their constituents. "Don't have enough money for healthcare, retirement, food, housing, education, [insert your particular problem here]? Vote for me and I'll take it from your countrymen by force of government and give it to you." Voters for such politicians are thieves by proxy. It's a shame that people resort to thievery to solve their problems. But it's not a mystery as to why abolishing such a system would be unpopular.

[thenmar]

Please don't write comments like this. You're not a grand political philosopher and this isn't the School of Athens. This low brow form of ideological dribble can just as easily be said in the opposite direction, that capitalists are exploiting their workers and that the free market is inherently unethical, and nobody is better off. If you think the world is that black and white then you're wrong.

[dpatru]

Asserting that the speaker shouldn't make arguments because he's not "a grand political philosopher" and that his comments are a "low brow form of idealogical dribble" does not contribute to a good discussion. It's ironic that this is how you attempt to raise the level of discussion.

My comment was in response to the suggestion that government was popular because it solved people's problems and that therefore libertarianism or anarchism is unworkable. "Yep, the world really is that simple - abolish government and things will get better. It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems."

My response was that government does solve problems, just in an illegitimate way. Government solves people's problems by giving them benefits that they would not otherwise have, at least not without a lot of work.

The situation is like slavery of pre 1860s in the southern United States. Slavery was obviously wrong, but it survived because it "solved problems" for its constituents.

In both cases eliminating the injustice would result in making the lives of many of the system's beneficiaries worse off. Specifically, in this case, people are willing to accept the rule of evil people like those portrayed in House of Cards because it makes their personal lives more pleasant than it would be otherwise.

[maxharris]

If you think the world is that black and white then you're wrong.

How can you be so sure that the world, properly understood, is all shades of grey? That you are so certain of nothing but that the world is grey - is that not itself a "black and white" perspective?