I think we've seen what Libertarianism leads to (the Gilded Age, the late 19th Century in general, really) and "treated like adults" only holds if you think an "adult" has an outright hostile work environment and no hope for advancement.
Couple that with the Libertarian love of gold as a currency and you have even more of the worst of the 19th Century in that political ideology.
Yes, libertarianism does lead to the rapid advancement of a society from third world conditions to first world conditions, including a rapid and significant improvement in the standard of living for the poorest people in the society, and in fact, in the US, until it was derailed by socialists, much progress in the elimination of poverty itself. It really is a shame that some people are so jealous of others that they would prefer that an entire society be kept in poverty than risk broadly distributed wealth and some people being obscenely rich.
As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians. It was Mises himself who was laughed at by his fellow austrians when he predicted the Nazis would occupy the country a year hence, only to be proven right. It was also Mises who predicted the great depression and its cause, prior to it happening. Personally, I made out like a bandit during the housing boom, and bubble, and bursting, all due to being tipped off by the Mises Institute that one was coming, as far back as 2001. So, go ahead and be smug about gold while the monetary base has gone vertical. What threat can you be to libertarians when the market has proven us right (and continues to do so)?
Seriously, though, your comment is a bunch of assertions, much like mine above. Alas, in the end I made an argument because I'm seemingly incapable of responding without making an argument.
There really is no point to posting the things you did about libertarianism. Libertarians have heard these claims before, and since they're not really honest (and can't be, because reality is far more complex than that) the only real point to them is either to start conflict or to signal to others.
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. (In fact this defines libertarianism.) The NAP. This is what they mean by "treating people like adults."
The initiation of force is immoral. IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force. IF you want to argue against a libertarian policy position, show how it violates the NAP.
Don't just vaguely name things that you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance) and then assert they are examples of libertarianism. (Shall I lay slavery at your feet? Would it be productive if I did?)
I don't suppose I could convince you to point to a link/paper/whatever that describes exactly what you mean here? Because, no offense, but so far this sounds like Rush Limbaugh-style labeling.
I'd also like to see an example, if you have one of Libertarianism working anywhere at a reasonable scale. Having no safety net (assuming Libertarianism implies that) means some peoples' very survival falls to the charity of others.
Personally I think the US already had its Libertarian utopia and the current state is the result. Innovation is terribly difficult and expensive and will simply be ripped off if it even works, so Game theory tells me that any big company will be doing what ever they can to avoid it. A simple choice is investing money in growing the government to erect barriers to entry in your market.
>As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians.
Well, to me the issue is "currency shared across multiple autonomous economic systems" vs each system having its own currency. Gold is just another entity that has an expectations-based value like fiat currency is. Tying ones currency to it seems to me little different than tying one currency to another currency (e.g. China -> USD). This is why I've, so far, written off the argument of going back to a gold standard. What if you need to depress your currency for international competitive reasons?
Finally, the gold standard would still be fiat currency. Governments only stay on it when it benefits them, or when they think it does, and can go off it at any time.
> libertarianism does lead to the rapid advancement of a society from third world conditions to first world conditions
Only by allowing companies to optimize for profit and advancement at the expense of everything else.
That's it, really: The Libertarian ideal of free markets deciding practically everything means that whoever gets ahead in the free market can write their own laws, effectively, and not have to worry about any externalities (like pollution, or injured workers, or so on) they create.
You also haven't made the case for it helping a country that's already in the First World.
> Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle.
Which is simplistic in that it deliberately ignores all of the ways to initiate force that companies actually engage in (union-busting, polluting, legislation-purchasing) and focuses on the crap they don't do, like breaking-and-entering or outright homicide.
> IF you want to argue against libertarianism, show how it is moral to initiate force.
No. Not valid. I must merely show that Libertarianism is a sub-optimal way to prevent the initiation of force, which I have above.
> you imagine are scary ("Gilded Age" for instance)
You really don't know how bad the Gilded Age was, do you?
Couple that with the Libertarian love of gold as a currency and you have even more of the worst of the 19th Century in that political ideology.