I thought I had heard of-- and parried-- every known criticism of Liberterianism. But for the first time in several years, I just heard a new one! Bold emphasis is mine:



This one is easy to refute, simply because it's not even a true statement!

Libertarians have long pointed out, with huge lists of concrete examples, that "regulations" are created because one group is trying to get the upper hand on some other group by leveraging the State's monopoly on force. In fact, recognizing this tenet is central to why many people are drawn to Libertarianism in the first place: the philosophy best describes both current and historical events, with regards to the nature of "regulations".

I would posit that the opposite criticism of non-Libertarians is in order: their default position is that a given law is created for the "public good". It's so pollyanish and naive that the term "clover" was invented to describe these people.