Libertarianism, the Founders, and the Fantasy of a Minimalist America

History doesn’t forgive those who stood by in silence — or those who willingly took the worst path forward, into the past, embracing anachronisms, already proven faulty world or life views.

It's just for fun, it's not serious, but it makes the point...

I shared a post by Rachel Hurley on Facebook last week. I thought this might be a good blog for the day after Memorial Day...

I thought it wasn't that controversial, until someone in a group I shared it in, did.

She starts with: "Someone accused me of being a Democrat this morning and told me to act like one. Spoiler Alert - I'm not a Democrat. And I’m definitely not a fucking Republican. I also do not see myself as some wishy washy independent with no political ideology."

I got many response posts, including this one guy. I know how deeply Libertarians cling to that immature — sorry, theatrical, SORRY again, I mean theoretical — form of politics and government. It’s a favorite among Republicans who haven’t thought it through — or who read Ayn Rand before they were intellectually ready, and it just… stuck. Like this guy.

Him
May also want to consider the Libertarians - or explain why you disagree with them.

My response

Libertarianism always struck me as an appealing but immature belief — great if you're healthy, wealthy, and untouched by systemic problems. But real freedom isn’t “every man for himself.” It’s a society that works for the many, not just the lucky few.

His response:

"So the purpose of government is to protect individual rights only helps a few? It helps the entire country."

Me:

Whenever it's disingenuous. In theory, yes — protecting individual rights should help everyone. But when “individual rights” are used to justify dismantling public services, ignoring inequality, or denying science, it stops serving the many and starts shielding the privileged. Rights without responsibility or context don’t build a healthy society — they just protect power.

Him

Look into this premise called "tyranny of the majority"

Me

I’m familiar with the concept — but what we have now looks more like the tyranny of the minority: a small, well-funded group blocking progress, denying science, and shaping policy to benefit the few. Utilitarianism isn’t mob rule — it’s evidence-based policymaking aimed at reducing suffering for the most, not enabling the loudest or richest. But okayyy...

Someone else jumped in

I know why I disagree with Libertarians. It is a government for small groups and not one that can or ever will work on a national basis. Communism has the same problem. Both are utopian formats

Him

Might want to tell the Founding Fathers that they were just utopians.

The other

But they weren't. They made a system that could adjust and balance.

Him

There you go. So libertarianism isn't utopian... it actually works.

Back to me

The Founding Fathers built a flexible system with checks, balances, and room for growth — not a rigid ideology like Libertarianism. Comparing the Constitution to a libertarian utopia misses the whole point: it was never meant to be dogmatic, it was meant to adapt. That’s why it works. Libertarianism, like Communism, ignores the scale, complexity, and messiness of real-world governance.

Him

SMH. What we had back then was libertarianism. It was just too early for anyone to call it that. And it worked.

Me

SMH indeed. What we had back then was not libertarianism — it was a mix of compromise, centralized authority, and evolving governance. The Constitution literally gave the federal government power to tax, raise armies, regulate commerce, and override state laws. That’s not libertarianism — that’s a pragmatic republic. If anything, the Founders rejected the Articles of Confederation (which were closer to libertarian ideals) because they didn’t work.

Him

It was libertarian, but it's certainly useful for opponents of libertarianism to deny it.

Me

If it were truly libertarian, the Founders wouldn’t have replaced the Articles of Confederation — which had a weak central government — with the Constitution, which explicitly empowered federal authority. That’s a historical fact, not denial. Calling early America libertarian ignores the deliberate move away from minimal governance when it failed to hold the nation together.

But, surreee....

Him

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians don't argue that we can't have a Constitution or a federal government. But, sure....

The Other Guy

Actually it doesn't work on a national level. It might work for a small town, just as communism would get bigger and people work the system

Me

Sure, long held beliefs are hard to let go of even in the face of facts and reality. I get that. However, Not confusing anything — just pointing out that what you're calling "libertarianism" was never the driving force behind the U.S. Constitution.

The Founders strengthened federal power because the minimalist approach under the Articles of Confederation failed. Libertarianism, as commonly defined, emphasizes minimal federal oversight — which directly clashes with the Constitution’s design to tax, regulate commerce, provide for defense, and enforce national law.

It’s easy to retroactively label early America as libertarian, but history tells a more complex — and far less idealized — story. Long-held beliefs are hard to let go of, even in the face of facts and reality.

Him

again, you seem to be defining libertarianism as anarchism. Early America was as close to libertarianism as you can get

Me

I get the distinction — libertarianism allows for limited government, anarchism doesn't. But early America under the Articles of Confederation was your closest example — and it failed. The Constitution was a deliberate shift away from that minimal model, adding federal power to tax, regulate trade, and enforce laws across states.

That’s not anarchism, and it’s not textbook libertarianism either — it’s a federal republic designed for balance, not ideology. If early America was "as close to libertarianism as you can get," then history shows us why we didn’t stay there.

Another person entirely interjected:

Because Libertarianism doesn't prioritize what works best for the most people. It leaves systemic problems in place which benefit the few to the detriment of the many. It hoards personal liberty with little regard to the consequences for those who have fewer liberties to hoard.

I could go on and on...

We could indeed...

He replied back to me

No, early America under the Articles of Confederation was NEVER my example.

Me
That clarifies your position, thanks. But if your example isn't the Articles and is the Constitution, then we’re talking about a document that was written specifically to expand federal authority — not limit it to the bare minimum. The Founders gave us a government that could tax, raise a military, regulate interstate commerce, and override state laws — all things libertarians typically oppose. You can call that libertarianism, but it doesn't match either the philosophy or the historical context.

Another respondent Because Libertarianism doesn't prioritize what works best for the most people. It leaves systemic problems in place which benefit the few to the detriment of the many. It hoards personal liberty with little regard to the consequences for those who have fewer liberties to hoard. I could go on and on... That guy Off on the wrong track already, so don't bother going any further... Me “Off on the wrong track already” is a convenient way to avoid engaging with valid criticism. Nathan raised a key point: Libertarianism often prioritizes theoretical freedom over practical equity, and that does leave systemic issues untouched. Dismissing it without countering the substance just proves the point — it’s easier to wave off critique than to reconcile ideology with real-world consequences. This thread seems ended.

That seems to say it all...

This takes me back to the more playful and supportive outlook of ideas like Purpleism — an absurdist philosophy (or 'religion') that treats irritants to the Human Experience as anathema.

Abuse, dictators, autocrats, kleptocrats, kakistocrats — and immature worldviews, whether in the form of libertarianism’s hyper-individualism or the libertine’s moral nihilism — all fail to grasp the obligations of living in a shared society.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT