Approaching Lord of the Flies

Edwin Lyngar, in an article for Salon, says he used to be a fan of libertarianism. Then he went to Honduras, which has embraced libertarian politics. He found that every business has its private armed security force. All the rich live in citadels topped with barbed wire. The infrastructure is crumbling – enterprising people fill potholes, then stand beside them hoping for tips. The description gets worse.

Lyngar wrote:

In America, libertarian ideas are attractive to mostly young, white men with high ideals and no life experience that live off of the previous generation’s investments and sacrifice. I know this because as a young, white idiot, I subscribed to this system of discredited ideas: Selfishness is good, government is bad. Take what you want, when you want and however you can. Poor people deserve what they get, and the smartest, hardworking people always win. So get yours before someone else does. … Eliminate all taxes, privatize everything, load a country up with guns and oppose all public expenditures, you end up with Honduras.

And

One can dismiss the core of near-sociopathic libertarian ideas with one simple question: What kind of society maximizes freedom while providing the best outcomes for the greatest number of human beings? You cannot start with the assumption that a Russian novel writer from the ’50s is a genius, so therefore all ideas about government and society must fit between the pages of “Atlas Shrugged.” That concept is stupid, and sends you on the opposite course of “good outcomes for human beings.” The closer you get to totally untamed, uncontrolled privatization, the nearer you approach “Lord of the Flies.”

Best outcomes for the greatest number of people? America isn't having that discussion.