Right. And surely all libertarians will always agree about which parts of the government need to be reduced.

Of course. 😀

As I said, it's a big tent, so you have everyone from far left anarchists (libertarian socialism/communism) to far right anarchists (anarchocapitalism and similar), as well as a bunch of centrists who want largely the same structure as today, but with a bit more restrictions on what the government can do to private citizens w/o a warrant and what associations people can make. Most seem to want less taxes and government spending overall, but as you imply, they would likely make different cuts.

One recent example:

From the article:

If you’ve ever encountered a freshly minted Ayn Rand enthusiast, you know what I mean.

Ayn Rand hated libertarians, and her followers (Objectivists) are likewise generally disliked by libertarians. Many libertarians find value in her works, but not necessarily as a complete solution, but as a direction. The underlying principles are completely different, with Ayn Rand and Objectivists generally believing that selfishness is best, while libertarianism's foundational belief is a ban on the initiation of force (generally, but there are a lot of variations, like those who put private property first). Under objectivism, littering would only be bad if someone owned the property you littered on, whereas under libertarianism, littering is bad because it's a form of force against others in the area (they have to see and/or clean up that trash).

That said, I think it's important to note that something like this will attract the crazies. Most people won't uproot their lives to go join some philosophical/political movement, they'll just try to improve things where they are. So you're going to get the more extreme ends of the libertarian spectrum that would be interested in moving there, especially those who can easily move on a whim (i.e. lots of money and/or no family attachments). This is going to attract those who want all the benefits of liberty without any of the consequences.

Ideally, shifts are gradual, so we can gauge whether things are getting better or worse, and the shift should be in the direction of more liberty. As people get accustomed to the additional responsibilities of increased liberty, we can continue making changes. People have gotten used to delegating their responsibilities to governments, and that mindset needs to change back to one where people are more aware of their impact on the world.

Sam Brownbeck’s adminstration in Kansas

Not a libertarian.

Tax cuts should only happen if spending cuts create a surplus. Brownbeck put the cart before the horse, and ended up needing to cut important spending to fuel the tax cuts, whereas the right way to do it is to make cuts on non-essential spending and cut taxes due to budget surplus. Most libertarians (outside those that believe starving the government of tax dollars is the way to go) will tell you we need a balanced budget first, tax cuts second.

The right way to do it IMO is closer to the way Utah is doing it (again, not libertarian, but probably closer than Brownbeck). I use this example because that's where I live, so I know it better than most other states. Basically, Utah has a balanced budget clause in the constitution that requires the state legislature to pass a balanced budget. As such, we generally don't have budget deficits, and when there's a surplus, the legislature cuts taxes (income tax has dropped 0.5% over the past 10 years or so, in 0.05% and 0.1% increments; state sales tax has been 4-5% for 50 years). We also limit income taxes to education expenses, and since people generally don't like high sales taxes (used for most other expenses), it puts downward pressure on spending.

If Utah was run by a libertarian, here are the shifts I'd expect to see:

• make transportation self-sufficient, by increasing vehicle registration taxes, adding toll roads, etc
• push to move more students to charter schools, since they seem to cost less and perform well (source from Sutherland Institute, a conservative think-tank in SLC, Utah, so be careful of bias)
• look into ways to reduce social service spending
• reduce criminal justice spending by legalizing/decriminalizing non-violent crimes (i.e. crimes w/o a victim), such as drug possession

If that yields enough spending reduction, then cut taxes. My personal preference is to eliminate the tax on groceries as it's completely regressive (currently 3%, which is a bit under half the local sales tax, which is about 7.5% after city and county taxes are included), encourage counties to shift sales taxes to property taxes (again, more progressive), and increase the taxpayer credit (phases out as income increases, and kind of works like a tiered tax system).

We need to stop thinking that we have some kind of hidden knowledge that the people who failed at this before didn’t have, and if we could just try it one more time, it will work this time bro I swear.

I partially agree. However, I don't think we should assume all laws and regulations are worth keeping, but don't just rip them out all at once.

Changes should be gradual. One thing I'd like to see government do more of is fund research, specifically around which laws and regulations are actually needed, and which we can cut. Government's main jobs should be:

• military and police to keep people safe, and courts for when that doesn't happen (and we need to end Qualified Immunity)
• fund research to direct policy, with a focus on minimizing harm for regular people - we should have a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and any policies from the government must respect that (I think the US 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments should be sufficient, but that's apparently not the case given the TSA, NSA, state abortion laws, etc)
• provide a safety net such that everyone has enough to survive (i.e. nobody should be below the poverty line); ideally this payout is $0 if society is doing a good enough job taking care of everyone, but we don't live in an ideal world

Beyond that, governments should largely stay out of private affairs, and only step in when a wrong needs to be corrected. If a car company, for example, causes someone to die by a defective safety feature or something, they should pay a massive fine (not just to the family, but to everyone else who bought their defective product, and the government for any expenses in prosecuting them) and their leadership should be tried in court for criminal negligence. Companies would have an incentive to have their vehicles tested and insured by a private org, which would shield that company from any financial penalties, and that company would also have an incentive to make sure those products are safe to reduce chance of needing a payout.

Governments are often reactive to these sorts of issues, and we need a system that is proactive to prevent problems from happening in the first place. If an innovative design provides the same guarantees, it should be allowed, provided they find a company willing to insure them, even if it doesn't work the same as other products on the market. If a company must put up $X (enough to cover the worst case scenario of a lawsuit) either directly in a trust or via an insurance company before selling anything on the market, you should get a lot fewer products that are fast-and-loose with the rules. To be effective, the penalties need to be massive and include the potential for jail time if there is any evidence of negligence.