Libertarians contribute significantly to civic policy discourse by staking out an extreme position that serves as useful ballast against extreme statists from the other side of the spectrum. I often use Reason, which I used to subscribe to in its print format, for ethics topics. Unfortunately, libertarians constantly erode their credibility by taking absurd positions, arguing for open borders, wanting to legalize heroin, and mu particular favorite, arguing that the U.S. should have sat out World War II.
Today the libertarians, or at least too many of them (one would be too many) are arguing that Jimmy Carter was an excellent President. Yes, I am really reading that. Here is Reason quoting Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, with favor:
“Abroad, he favored diplomacy over war, garnering the least bloody record of any post–World War II president. So what if he didn’t look tough, or even particularly competent, as he did it? A clear-eyed look at the Carter record reveals something surprising: This bumbling, brittle, unloveable man was, by the standards that ought to matter, our best modern president.”
Because, you see, the standards that “ought to matter” mean that reducing the American Presidency in influence, prestige and power is a good thing. So what if Americans have no respect for the office or the man holding it? So what if the new template for future leaders is fecklessness and apathy? What “matters” is that if chaos reigns all over the globe, the United States canconfidently eschew all responsibility because no one we care about gets hurt.
Heck, if diminishing the Presidency is an accomplishment, Joe Biden must stand as one of the all-time greats!
I have tried arguing with libertarians periodically over the years, and found them to be cultists, like climate change fanatics, abortion activists and the Trump Deranged. Reality doesn’t impose on their beliefs at all, at least not the libertarians who have swallowed the whole philosophical enchilada. It is useful to have vocal individuals who express principled objections to government over-reach, but when they declare weak leaders good leaders and praise passivity as an absolute virtue, such voices disqualify themselves as serious advocates.
In short, if Jimmy Carter was our best modern President, I’m Woody Woodpecker.
Ethics Alarms 
I consider myself a “small-L” libertarian – so described because the best analysis of the Libertarian Party (LP) I’ve encountered describes it as incapable or organizing a two-car funeral. In my experience, hard-core LP types can get into vehement arguments about where to have lunch.
To me, libertarianism – akin to anarchy and communism – is essentially a romantic ideal. The basis of each – in libertarianism, minimum government that expects all humans to interact in their own best interests, which somehow magically align with those of others; in anarchy, no government at all, with with roughly similar expectations; and in communism, a mutual sharing of labor and resources that somehow leads to the betterment of all.
It’s not hard to understand why some would be attracted to each. They’re romantic. And one could make the argument that at least these viewpoints expect a measure of societal contribution, as opposed to simply expecting people to do what their faith demands.
The problem, of course, is that none of these ideals are capable of surviving a collision with basic human nature. History has proven that time and again. One might think that shitshow on the border for the past four years might at least prompt a second look at that position by the Libertarian Party. So might all the fentanyl drug deaths suggest a slightly different LP stance on drugs. I’m not holding my breath.
I do utilize certain libertarian concepts to inform my world view, and I find them helpful. Of the three forms mentioned, I find it the most pleasant, and I daresay practical, ideal. But as for wholesale embrace? Forget it. Humans aren’t ready for that approach. They certainly won’t be in my lifetime, and I strongly doubt they’ll be ready in anyone else’s.
Hmm… I also consider myself small libertarian as opposed to Libertarian. An awful lot of the true believers are Anarchists who pay lip service at best to practical concerns. To me, libertarianism honestly applied is a pragmatic rather than utopean ideology.
Just to give an example, here are few things I support that a number of True Believers would disagree with me on, although I do have a number of caveats on them. I could also list some fairly extreme items that almost everyone would disagree with.
1. Border control. Control of territory is a defining characteristic of government, and allowing anyone to come in with no restrictions is an anarchist position when viewed honestly.
2. Free trade only with other free countries. No exporting wage slavery by importing cheap goods from places like China.
3. Having public schools. I ALSO support broad freedom to use private schools, but think some sort of baseline is a net improvement on freedom.
4. Some restrictions on school libraries and employees.
5. Banning gender altering medical interventions for children. No puberty blockers, hormones, or surgeries.
I sympathize in a libertarian position in the sense that “Liberty” is part of our founding document.
Any proposal to restrict Liberty should first be met with the question: Why?
Abortion, drug criminalization, DWI, “common sense” gun legislation, etc. require an analysis of the reason why. Sometimes, the reason is obvious; sometimes, it isn’t.
Then, you get into the particulars.
War? The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the President is the head of the armed forces. It is a legitimate governmental function. We can argue about whether a particular use of force is good or bad, but it is stupid to debate whether it can be done.
Immigration? Congress has the authority to pass immigration laws. You may not like it, but they could pretty much close the borders entirely if they wanted to. They have been given that power and can pretty much do what they want with it.
Restrict speech? They don’t have the power and better have a really good “Why?” explanation.
Guns? Same answer.
The power to tax and spend? It’s right there in the document! It is probably abused, but its use is not illegitimate.
Education?* I don’t see where they got the power over that and don’t know how it has been justified.
As much as Liberty is a core value of ours, the Constitution is not a Libertarian document.
-Jut
*It drives me nuts when people say things to the effect of: wouldn’t it be great if teachers had all the school supplies they need and the Air Force had to have a bake sale to buy a new F-15. My response is: because one of them is in the Constitution and the other is not! How is that so difficult?
(Great! Now I’m in a bad mood. Thanks, Jack!)
While I consider myself a libertarian, libertarians like others can quickly get cultish to the point of lacking practicality. Often there appears to be a fine line between libertarian and libertine, which often is troublesome. Regarding Jimmy Carter, he did do a few good things, but failure to complete incompetent acts, including driving the US into another war does not merit a declaration of success… you are not a success if you fail at being incompetent, because the opposite is not competence. Stating that Carter was a successful president is a circular argument and appears to be just a poor effort to be contradictory.