Few issues with the article.<p>1. A quick Google search would help the author learn that Ayn Rand was an objectevist, not a libertarian.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism</a><p>2. The author builds up straw men and uses unnecessary flourish. Example:
> The government won’t fix the roads, so these desperate entrepreneurs fill in potholes with shovels of dirt or debris. They then stand next to the filled-in pothole soliciting tips from grateful motorists. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation.<p>I imagine that most libertarians would prefer private roads that are privately maintained. Kind of like Starbucks doesn't rely on panhandlers to clean up after their stores, private roads would be maintained by the owner.<p>3. The author provides no concept of what it means to be a "libertarian" country and expects the reader just to accept that on face value. Is tax revenue low as percentage of GDP? What percentage of industries are private? Are there many business regulations? All good questions the author could have gone into instead of a childish rant on how poor this country is.<p>4. Ridiculous statements like: "Part of the reason this discredited, libertarian bullshit still carries any weight for Americans is because so few of us travel. Only 30 percent of Americans have passports, and if Americans do go places, it’s not often to Honduras."<p>There are poor countries that come from all political philosophies.
He could have easily wrote the same piece about Venezuela and their leftist policy, but that would tread too close to his ideological home. Fact is parts of South America have systemic problems that transcends political dogma, Honduras is not impoverished due to libertarianism no more than Venezuela is due to communism, both are in the state they are in due to corruption which seems to transcend the government duJour of many South American states.
This seems to touch on the biggest problem I have with libertarianism. Things which require constant maintenance are fixed in spurts. Some wealthy Hondurans may eventually decide that the situation with their roads is annoying and worth fixing, and may offer to fix the problem at a reduced price which reflects their personal interest in the matter. Until then, they will have crumbling roads. Infrastructure is best served by constant effort, and there is no will to act on the part of people with money. The solution to that problem seems to be a real blind spot for them.<p>That said, I respect their stance on personal responsibility, which is something I think liberals neglect. I don't mean to pick on them too much.
The problem is that it's Salon - the writing is really badly biased, doesn't actually understand Libertarianism at all, and is mostly trying to smear Ron Paul.
The only actual refutation this needs is some country that is practicing "real libertarianism" or some approximation and doing well. There are lots of countries out there, isn't there a good example?<p>If not, I'm strongly inclined to think that there's some reason libertarian ideas don't work in practice -- like most theories. The real question then is why an unproven theory gets so much respect.
This article's case against libertarianism is rather flimsy. But I loved this bit:<p><i>"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."</i>