Here are five examples of how TYT is wrong about libertarianism.
#1 The assertion that ‘small government’ is the core principle of libertarianism.
Libertariansim is first and foremost about individual liberty, not small government. A libertarian government would be small (relative to the one we have today) but only as an implication of libertarian principles. Libertarians reject education, medicine, and marriage as issues that require government involvement.
#2 In a libertarian society, there are no police.
This is simply a conflation of libertarianism with some type of anarchism. Libertarians are not anarchists.
#3 Free markets create wealth disparity…and that’s bad.
Wealth disparity is a fantastic indicator of economic progress.
To understand why this is true, think about where inequality comes from. Most people are poor, and then some of them get wealthier. That’s why India has such a “better” gini score than the United States. Everyone is equally poor! Marxists like to suggest that we live in a zero-sum world where it is only possible to get rich at the expense of others. Liberals know that this isn’t the case. Wealth can actually be created, not just redistributed!
#4 Employers could “force rules” in an unregulated economy
Not true. Libertarians object to the use of force in society. It violates our core principle; Liberty.
#5 Libertarianism is a rich man’s ideal
If this were true, it would be hard to explain why all the big banks are backing big-state political candidates. Unrestricted government that protects the interests of the highest bidder; that’s what they want.
99MQTA 
“#2 In a libertarian society, there are no police.
This is simply a conflation of libertarianism with some type of anarchism. Libertarians are not anarchists.”
There are libertarian anarchists, so this last sentence is not necessarily true. Even with that being said, The Young Turks are wrong, just as if they said, “in a libertarian society, there is no education.” Libertarians believe in education being done privately, by communities, in many voluntary ways. Libertarian anarchists merely extend this to policing. My perspective, as one such anarchist, is this– part of why I am a libertarian is because I don’t believe I, or anyone, know what is best for everyone. I don’t think it’s possible to know how to run everyone’s lives. I don’t believe it’s possible to know the -best- way to do policing is . But I do think, like with any other realm of human behaviors, experimentation, competition and study can help determine better ways to police violent or fraudulent behaviors. If that comes in the form of “dispute resolution” organization, or private defense organizations, or whatever else, I don’t mind, as long as it works on voluntary contracts and solid philosophical ground.
LikeLike
I don’t want to tell anyone they can’t identify as libertarian so perhaps I should have said something more specific about prominent libertarians advocating limiting government but not eliminating it. I like the way you represent liberty as humble and I completely agree. To say that a centralized committee can make decisions for the masses is arrogant and that is a key difference between statists and liberty lovers. Thanks for reading and being willing to let me make my own decisions.
LikeLike