raht on raht on raht on...
The thing about “libertarianism” is that it would be completely workable if the individual had INTERNAL behavioral controls, which would preclude the need for “societal” controls on behavior.
Another aspect is that the total removal of all government alleviation of consequences for dumbass individual decisions would lead to a lot fewer of said dumbass decisions being made.
You make the common error of mistaking libertarians for anarchists.
“The thing about “libertarianism” is that it would be completely workable if the individual had INTERNAL behavioral controls, which would preclude the need for “societal” controls on behavior.”
in other words, if they will voluntarily live as you think they should, we wouldn’t have to FORCE them to comply?
“The thing about ‘libertarianism’ is that it would be completely workable if the individual had INTERNAL behavioral controls, which would preclude the need for ‘societal’ controls on behavior.”
Libertarianism is a political ideology which, while it may engender concomitant social attitudes, does not speak to all the external behavioral controls that might reform recalcitrant individuals. Libertarians can just as easily be a J.S. Mill or a Max Stirner politically and a Fitzjames Stephens socially.
What a comment on the ubiquity of the state, that apparently the only institution you can imagine capable of inhibiting those lacking internal controls is government. As if the family, friends, neighbors, the church, clubs, fraternal organizations, work, heck, even internet forums, don’t exist. All sorts of institutions between the state and the individual—all of them subtler and potentially more effective—are available.