A typical conservative libertarian believes that the free market and people working by themselves will lead to the best possible country. For example, individuals should make decisions about how to fund their healthcare, how to build their houses and how to invest their money. The smaller the government, the easier it is for the individual to act and use their free agency to progress or regress as they see fit. Each man will prosper according to his ability, if you will.
Why, then, not simply go to no government at all? Well, think about a nation in anarchy and a potential contract is going to be made. I want to buy a pig from you. Since there’s no government and no currency, I’ll instead offer you a cow. That’s a great deal, so you agree and hand over the pig. I, though, realize that I have a better option than to give you the cow – I can keep it along with the pig. You have no recourse other than physical violence (which is typically the eventual result of any anarchical situation). Therefore, even the most die-hard libertarian will typically admit that there is at least a need for the government to enforce contracts so that specialization of labors can take place. After all, if you can’t buy a loaf of bread without risking bloodshed, everybody will just do things for themselves.
That leaves us with the conservative libertarian’s ideal world where people can make enforceable contracts and prosper according to their individual ability. The invisible hand will direct the market and people will succeed or fail according to the choices they make. The next problem, though, comes when an outside power decides to invade the country and take away what the individual has gained by force. The individual might rally his friends, call up the volunteer militia and try to fight the invading tanks, but ultimately will fail. When a despotic nation is able to unify its forces into a concentrated attack, there’s simply no time to organize a viable defense among the countless individuals.
Recognizing the potential for invasion, the brilliant capitalist realizes that a standing army needs to be able to counter any outside threat. Therefore, the individual corporation might start selling army insurance – you all pay a little bit and if there’s ever a problem, you’re protected. The problem is that the rational individual will recognize that it’s not worth it to pay into the insurance because as long as someone else is paying in, the end benefit will be the same. Therefore, even the staunchest libertarian will recognize that everybody should be required to help pay for the national defense. Then, it’s turned over to the government, too.
The same basic pattern can be followed for many things that the United States government currently oversees because the government can do a better, more efficient job than any individual or even any corporation. A few simple examples are infrastructure (the interstates, railroads and even the telegraph), national parks, police enforcement, securities regulations and even biomedical research (through the NIH). The simple truth is that whenever a large scale enterprise is undertaken that will affect (benefit) the entire country, there simply isn’t an individual who can implement that sort of undertaking without the support of the nation. Until we have a nation with a collective consciousness, we are left with our government that represents our collective goals. The question with election shouldn’t be whether an individual is going to minimize government or increase its power, it should be a discussion of which improvements need to be made and how.
The problem with libertarians is that they arbitrarily draw a line and say, “There’s enough government, let us live how we are.” The libertarian believes that certain things, if they can’t be done by the individual, shouldn’t be done. Whether that leaves living as the Amish or like Jefferson’s “gentlemen farmers” is unclear, but the result is inevitable – certain types of progress will never be done. The libertarian focuses on the means of accomplishment and glorifies the worker over the work being done. Thus, even if government could do something more effectively, the libertarian believes that the means are superior if the same result comes through private hands. Rather than focus on the obvious similarities to Bolshevik proletariat (remember how that turned out?), I’ll make an economic argument that the government should take the lead in any necessary improvements that it can do more efficiently than an individual person or corporation. Since the government has the ability to encourage (through economic incentives or threat of criminal prosecution) people to act, it has the ability to make wholesale change much more effectively than any individual.
I believe that the role of the government is to lead. I don't think that it should compel (though it should compel in some, few things like compelling an individual to not murder) but it should encourage certain behaviors and even incentivize certain actions. While the government shouldn't say "you can't choose to get fat under penalty of death", taxing fat people or fat-causing foods is what government should be doing after it decides that being fat is not ideal. Governments need to take direction and the present form of the US government is not good at taking direction. It is built to last - and it's lasted for well over 200 years. Its problem is that doesn't adapt. The setup of Congress is such that it is forced to centrism (aka, the status quo). When Congress actually passes some bill or effects a change, it's national news for months. When the President says something firm and somehow backs it up, school kids will study it forever (think the Truman Doctrine). Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took a stand once (Brown v. Board of Education) and it's still hailed as a mighty achievement. The problem with this current government is that leading is not common nor is it easy to do. A powerful government gives the people direction and then, if the people don't like that direction, they can replace the government. The inability to adapt or to quickly change the government means that we're stuck with what we have and no major directional changes will happen within a decade (usually longer).
I'm not a libertarian because I believe that a government gives direction, encourages certain action and then is directly accountable to the people (not to warring parties or political machines). Libertarian governments are fine for a country that is happy with how it is, but if a country ever wants to progress and improve, it needs direction. You don't find that direction from a libertarian government.
I think the big difference between my understanding of the role of government and a libertarian view of government boils down to my belief that government is simply a group of individuals chosen to give the country direction. Government isn’t an amorphous body or a club of narcissistic power-mongers, it’s the individuals we individually choose to further our collective goals. When government can do something beneficial for the nation more efficiently or effectively than private individuals, it should. The world needs strong leaders who make decisions and then are held accountable for those decisions. The libertarian ideal leaves the nation in a state of stagnant mediocrity and glorifies our present state as ideal. I can’t embrace a form of government that focuses on keeping us as we are whether than helping us realize what we may become.