Libertarianism is actually the most practical philosophy there is. It ensures that the government doesn't overstep their boundaries and allows the people to function the way they see fit. I fail to see what is so impractical about a society that functions without the proverbial Big Brother. As a pro-life Libertarian, I fully believe that the government should take a step back, and stop acting in a patronizing way.
Libertarianism takes things down to the individual level, it focuses on giving government a limited role in society and maximizing individual rights. It dose not mean abolishing the government, but rather gives you the choice if you wish to fund or not to fund the governments policies, it is mostly voluntary. People are still held accountable for crimes and governments still can support the people, however it would be on an unreliable income( voluntary tax system) and would not be permitted to violate the constitution or your individual rights. If it where to do so, it would lose financial support from the people.
Libertarianism is based on the principles of the Constitution, and that seems very practical to me! I see no problem in a world where the people have the freedom to do anything they please, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Notice the situation that we are in now, this situation has come about because of an expansion of government. Giving the power back to the people, and restoring the republic is the ultimate goal of Libertarians such as myself. Some say that Libertarians need to 'pick a side.' We have picked a side! We choose the side of the people, and when we start looking at the policies that benefit the people the most (instead of what benefits the government the most), it becomes extremely appealing, and extremely practical, to be a Libertarian.
Libertarians assume that laissez-faire attitudes toward economics and political problems will make things settle in a natural, fair order. The problem is that the wealthy and powerful will always game the system to have economic and political advantages. For example, we need civil rights laws otherwise disenfranchised people who do no hold economic or political clout will be discriminated against with no legal recourse.
What gets lost by libertarian voters is not thinking about the situation who they support is in. Gary Johnson made lots of claims he couldn't possibly carry out. He knew this and made them anyway because he was fully aware he wasn't going to be elected so it didn't matter, he was merely trying to dupe people into getting 5% of the vote. Look more closely at what he said he was gong to do. Sounds great, wouldn't happen.
The trouble with true libertarianism is that, while it recognizes the power of a strong free market system, the philosophy really doesn't want to agree with the thought that regulations mandated by the society at large through a governing body are useful. In other words, a just government acts as a referee in order to protect the good from the bullies and thieves that would take advantage of the weak without such oversight.
Though many others would say otherwise, libertarians are trapped between two completely polar governing philosophies. What happens often looks like a lie; promises often end up not looking so promising, and identities cause themselves to shift. Libertarians, as I see it, are still a little bit angsty, and just need to pick a side.
Libertarianism assumes that all people will act selflessly and that the gains of a individual will always benefit society. Working towards a ideal of limited governance is not just a political but a cultural change which only a handful of nations are ready for and certainly none of them western. As nice as the thought of no restrictions (or few) is its unrealistic and can lead only to oppression not by government but by the selfish who will exploit those seeking to aid the people. Without the protection of government nothing protects the people form oppression or protects the world from greed. Freedom to do all these things is nothing if we are not free from oppression and lack the wealth to do them.
Human nature is the problem. Enough time and temptation, some individuals will take advantage of others, cheat , lie, steal , exert power over others. To guard against this we institute a state of laws, which over time cheats, lies , steals and exerts power over us. Life and human nature are vicious circles. Best solution, small, like minded communities or total independence/isolation, rural self sufficiency. Nothing- Nothing but complete tyranny- will work on a very large scale- not libertarian, not capitalist not comm/socialism.
Jefferson right about smaller country of farmers/rural population would have been best. Again human nature gravitates towards citites.
Libertarians love to mock and scorn communists and extreme socialists for their views (as they should) but fail to see the hypocrisy in this. Wherever extreme libertarianism has been implemented disaster soon follows much like socialism. While I do believe that the government should try to restrict itself and always look for the best solution wherever possible be it private or public the idea that such a tiny government as many libertarians would like is nothing but thoughtless ideological nonsense. While it may be nice to think that the government could just leave us alone with our tanks, nukes and crack farms and everything would be sunshine and rainbows the fact is that human nature requires a larger entity to take care of us and stop us from killing each other like the barely civilized apes we are.
Government provides infrastructure for commerce, roads, bridges, air space organization all are important to keep non partisan but need to be supported..The idea of every man for himself would not support this effort. Also big business needs to be monitored in order to ensure public safety and that monopolies are not created.