The question itself displays a lack of understanding of Libertarians' argument. The Libertarian says that the state is attractive to special interests, as it allows them to thrive at the expense of others.
So what you are really asking is: "How come those special interests are not so keen on giving up their power?"
. . . and that's kind of like asking:
"If rape is so bad, how come there are rapists?"
Nope, ideologies are systems for competition for the hearts and minds of the populace. Libertarianism is one of the oldest modern ideologies, the reason it has never been tried is because it doesn't appeal to people, they had more free market systems which were perhaps not perfectly libertarian but close enough and rejected them in favor of better systems which were less free market.
This is still an is/ought fallacy. The Nazis may say: "Germany in the 1930s rejected freedom for fascism, therefore, freedom is invalid."
The amount of people that subscribe to an ideology says nothing about the value of that ideology, and this is even truer in the case of governments because governments are thieves - they do not represent the general values of the populace.
I'll also expand on that: the negative effect of the state and special interests is spread out amongst the population, and is not easily seen, whereas the benefits to the state and its special interests are concentrated and massive. The direct effect of the state on the individual is mostly seen in taxes, which are for most an inconvenience only. The negative effects on the market are not so easily seen, and can easily be blamed on capitalism, and the crime of military interventionism is not seen as such because its happening in some country on the other side of the world. Add in to that government welfare, healthcare, etc. and there is little incentive to start campaigning for state reduction.
In short, the reason why we haven't seen a mass libertarian uprising in any of these countries is that the state is a snake in the grass, and even when people wake up, it is extremely adept at retaining power.
The "why hasn't it been tried yet?" is an is/ought fallacy.
Because, by the time it appeared as an actual ideology, it was too late to compete against Democrats and Republicans.
by James Smith3 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
by Don W6 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by Sooner283 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world … odayspaperhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world … wanted=allEmployees work in dangerous conditions, are paid a pittance of a wage, and don't even have the...
by Gary Anderson4 years ago
Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!Here is...
by James Smith3 years ago
Wikileaks founder and activist Julian Assange has turned to partisan politics, arguing that the movement behind Ron and Rand Paul's rise to prominence in the GOP is the 'only hope' for reform in American...
by GA Anderson7 weeks ago
Gary Johnson is the Libertarian party's presidential nominee. If he had a chance to beat Hillary Clinton, would you consider him over Donald Trump?If Conservative's compared Johnson's history and issue positions to...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.