AKA, Libertarianism has already been tried, it was called Feudalism. This post is part 2 of what I am calling the "Why I am not a Libertarian" series. Part 1 is located here . In this post, I am going to argue that libertarianism is not a liberal view. Although the differences between libertarianism and liberalism appear subtle, they are indeed so significant that I feel that the adoption of libertarianism would lead to the undoing of the open society. This is because libertarianism has more in common with feudalism than it does with liberalism. These are bold claims that require explanation. I think the best explanation I have found is in the essay "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View" by Samuel Freeman. The essay can be found HERE . I will follow the essay closely with a few thoughts on my own, but Freeman's essay is worth reading in full. Like Freeman, I will not be focusing on philosophical liberalism but on liberal institut
It seems most people I interact with online are Libertarians of one form of another. I should begin by stating that I don't reject Libertarianism wholesale, and I will in fact find myself agreeing with many policies they advocate. With that being said I have often come across weak arguments in defense of Libertarianism and I want to go through some of them. My goal is mostly to clarify to myself why I find Libertarianism unconvincing, to the best of my ability. The plan is to write a few of these short essays explaining things I disagree about Libertarianism or aspects I find unconvincing. I want to start with the Non-Aggression Principle which is something many Libertarians appear to advocate. Some call it the non-coercion principle or some other names I can't think of now. The idea is simple enough and on the initial pass, it seems almost convincing. It really comes down to the idea that the use of force should only be done in a "defensive" manner, and never ini