With right-libertarianism, critics have argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, and that libertarianism's philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation fail to prevent the abuse of natural resources.
Critics such as Corey Robin describe right-libertarianism as fundamentally a reactionary conservative ideology united with more traditional conservative thought and goals by a desire to enforce hierarchical power and social relations:[5] Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty – or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue.
Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires".
He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.
"Philosopher Jonathan Wolff criticizes deontological libertarianism as incoherent, writing that it is incapable of explaining why harm suffered by the losers in economic competition does not violate the principle of self-ownership and that its advocates must "dishonestly smuggle" consequentialist arguments into their reasoning to justify the institution of the free market.
[10] Jeffrey Friedman has criticized right-libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.
[11] Easterlin [12] amongst others [13] suggests material gain/rising GDP is not statistically correlated with gains in happiness, with the psychological distress associated with social and lifestyle disruption - e.g. smaller living space in growing urban centres - from rapidly changing technology and other negative externalities (e.g. pollution)[14] possibly offsetting the benefits of growth.
Reconciliation of individual rights and the advances of a free market economy with environmental degradation is a problem that few right-libertarians have addressed.
Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?Furthermore, Lind has criticized right-libertarianism as being incompatible with democracy and apologetic towards autocracy.
[28] Yet prior to 1860, women,[29] indigenous Americans [30] and African slaves [31] rarely enjoyed self-determination and freedom; posing a grave challenge to any suggestion that the US has ever been a land of liberty for all.
They believe that government programs like health assistance, Social Security, foreign aid, and corporate welfare do more harm than good.
They argue that everyone must be equal before the law, and everyone has human rights to personal security, to property, and to free speech that the government must protect, not violate.However, critics question why the abuse of state power should be singled-out when market and private power can be equally misused to coerce people to act against their own interests [10]