the flaws in strict libertarianism
strict libertarianism gives us complete personal liberty. it is my opinion that ‘strict’ anything is incomplete and without exceptions, strict policy leads to failure.
for example, strict libertarianism has no ability or motivation to protect the oceans. large lakes, long rivers, large forests, or the air. libertarianism has at best a spotty record of effectively produce a strong defense or justice system or sense of community.
in short, you need both compromises on personal liberty and more than simple personal liberty to approach utopia.
the biggest compromise of personal liberty is that you need a system of elected leadership for defense and that system must include compelled participation. participation in the common defense could be enlisting in defense forces or paying a tax that supports the defense or developing technologies for defensive purposes. the next compromise of personal liberty is subjugation to laws that delimit your personal liberty in ways that prevent you from violating the property and lives of other people or groups of people (corporations, clubs, associations …). such a system must also include a system of laws that prescribe the appropriate defensive reaction to the violations of people and their property within the community.
an innocent person cannot be prevented from accessing or leaving their property nor be prevented from accessing property utilities buy creating a blockade of land around another person’s land. that is to say that i cannot be allowed to purchase all the land around your land and then starve you out by cutting you off from the surrounding community. i must either be prevented from acquiring access roads or you must be given unlimited permission to traverse my land.
since personal liberty isn’t the goal but a means to a goal, the goal being survival and prosperity. and since the goal cannot be accomplished with poison in the air and dead oceans and polluted water supplies. we need more than personal liberty. we need regulations concerning how people can affect the environment and use resources that are essential to the prosperity of our lives. you may own a forest but the decimation of a forest could ruin the lives and property of everyone in all the surrounding communities. it is therefore in the interests of accomplishing that goal, that the people of those communities should restrict the destruction of forests.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society