If we can assume people never change, libertarianism is doomed to fail: "So it is, so it always must be." If people believe in government now, as they almost always have in history, then we can assume that people will always continue to believe in government, and to fight against it is a futile practice.
If we can assume government force will always completely outweigh the force of the individual, it would take a monumental amount of time and energy for libertarianism to become a big enough thing for change to ever happen. If we can assume people fall in and out of beliefs, we could say libertarianism is a passing fad which will shut up once government is improved, and then nothing would ever happen anyway, as we've seen from protesting in the past several decades.
If we can assume society requires government to function, libertarianism only serves to dismantle our modern civilization. If we can assume people cannot function together without an all-powerful leader behind the wheel to tell us what to do and how to do it, then to remove government from modern society is to regress into the stone ages, where people killed each other without remorse for there was no law or entity to enact on that law to stop them.
If we can, again, assume people never change, even if the government was to be removed, people would form their own rogue governments and force anyone who isn't a part of that government to become a part of it. Once these gangs amass enough power, they will then charge their "citizens" protection fees, or threaten to ostracise and ultimately, kill. Thus, libertarianism is pointless, because we would only wind up back at square one, so why fight it?
There's always the classic: "Who would build the roads?" If there's no central force to plan the roads, nobody would build the roads, and then we wouldn't have hospitals and firefighters and there would be no police officers so there would be total chaos in the streets and since murder is legal (a funny way to say it but people still say it this way) you can just kill anyone at any time without any repercussion and then a culmination of the reasons mentioned above would occur because, because, well isn't it obvious all of this would happen?
And then there's people who are on government funding who will support the state just 'cos they like free money. There's a shit load of them cropping up in America nowadays, anyhow. And then you have the "patriots" who love their government more than their country, or assume a country and government are inseparable and therefore the same thing.
I guess it all boils down to fear of what we don't know. Some people just can't stand change, even if it could be for the better. There are always proponents and opponents of any given subject. What matters is who has the most logical arguments, and when it comes to interpretation of people, there's no logic to be had; all one can do is observe and draw conclusions, and an observation is a very subjective thing. After all, everyone knows someone who believes whole-heartedly in the existence of God; it's not because they fail to see the logic, but because they do actually perceive Him to be real. To make an objective observation on the validity of God would mean there would be no religion, but not everyone does that, perhaps unwilling to or unable. Not everyone can be cold in the face of emotion.
But when it comes to libertarianism, the best approach is to simply look at it objectively. An objective view of government is essentially this: a mafia which collects protection fees and uses those fees to further and protect their own interests. If you've ever said, "Well the way government spends on X is so stupid," it's not stupid, it's intentionally that way. No man with so much power will let it slip so easily through his fingers. If one can view government in such a way, the pieces fall into place, and one can see why libertarianism is always growing, especially in the light of recent events which make that objective view apparent. At which point, one must ask themselves, "Then without the government, how would we survive?" To which the answer is, "Without your parents, how would you survive?" But many of us know how to survive without our parents; it is just an arm's length away from drawing the conclusion that people do have the ability to change, people do have the ability to think for themselves, people do have the capacity to care for others, and people do have the necessary tools and man power to continue life as it is without an expensive, oppressive overhead, with enough intelligent people who know how to make the roads and build the hospitals and know the best spots to do so, and how often, and know how to conduct business in such a manner which keeps their business profitable, as, if that people need roads and need hospitals and need security, they would be willing to pay for such items, for if this weren't true, then there's no logical reason why we should force them to, besides the belief that we (the government) know what's best for you (the citizen), even when you don't realize it. But can't we agree that people are not born as stupid as they're trained to be?
In other words, proponents of libertarianism believe society can be comprised of intelligent beings, whereas opponents assume society is stupid and irresponsible and could never take care of themselves. The proponent believes people can be adults on all matters; the opponent assumes people are children who need constant punishment to keep in line throughout their entire lives. But whether or not it will or won't work is a question to the libertarian. To the opponent, it's always a definitive "no, it won't." I can think of no man who merely assumed his entire life what truths were right who was worth the words he'd regurgitated from another man's mouth. At some point, you start to think on your own, or you don't, and repeat what you'd heard in school. Free thought just happens to be the core logic behind libertarianism, which is even in its name:
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
As the point of libertarianism is achieve a state of liberty, then we can see it can only happen with the absence of the enemy of liberty, being controlled, being "governed", ergo, we must pursue either a stateless society or, as some libertarians like it, a society where the state is very limited in power (a view which I disagree with as we've already attempted this in America, with failed results.) At which point, it's simply a matter of "how?" Which is the hang-up; how do we do it? And at the same time, it's such a liberating feeling, because it is no longer, "Well it's impossible so fuck trying anyway," but it's a measly yet refreshing "how?", for if there is ever a time when the answer is not "how?", then we're just cogs in a machine of something greater, at which point, I may as well not call myself a human being. But it's hard to explain that to someone who would sooner be controlled than allow himself the freedom of thought.
TL;DRUltimately: I don't know if it'll work. But I'll be damned if putting up with this shit we have today is better off than trying something different. That's the point of libertarianism: acknowledging that we know nothing. Which is why I can't take someone who says, "So it is, so it always must be" seriously, in regards to the state, for it assumes absolute knowledge on the matter. We may as well call such men God.
