Libertarianism: What they actually want? (Quick Read)

Divy Rangan
2 min readDec 31, 2019
Photo Courtesy: Libertarian National Committee, Inc

You all must have heard about this fancy term, which to an average person gives a view that if you are standing for libertarianism, then you are an ambassador for a lawless society. But the fact stands that the people who judge those Libertarians focus on the shell of shellfish and haven’t tried to know the real meaning and essence of this lovely thought of “political freedom, autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.”

When there’s the arrival of this term in the political structure of the nation, it said that the person/administration is trying to challenge the foundations of our nation but

“The difficulty lies, not in the new idea, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of the minds.”

- John Maynard Keynes

Libertarianism seems like a new and complex system with factions that are non-mainstream and different from being formulated as a formal sense system of governance.

Libertarianism generally pushed by the pro-capitalism league of the economic system who wants deregulations of government control over the actions that have been kept under the government jurisdiction since the inception like import-export restrictions and other parts of the laws like extreme taxation on the rich people as their belief match with the free-marketeers like Milton Freedman who believes that there is the need for the government to regulate the administrative activities and maintaining law and order and taking care of the national security with the little emphasis on the basic necessities required to the people residing in the country like health care and education.

He believes that the government is the sole institution that is responsible for all the problems existent in our society.

Once in an interview, Milton Friedman was asked about his views about FDA, a body which clears and held newly formed drugs and a case was discussed where a medicine was conducted by FDA considering the uncertainty that it might have some side-effects and will affect some people, and ignoring the fact that the medicine if introduced, could have saved many lives.

“But according to him, FDA’s non-optimistic thoughts are responsible for non-availability of the drug to the people in need; instead they tend to be on the safer side of the spectrum by simply denying the pharma companies to get their medicine released for human consumption in the United States fo America. Generally, they wait for the medicine to be released in the other parts of the world, and if it worked there, then FDA gives them a green signal to get the medicine available to people in the USA, which is an injustice to the people of the USA.”



Divy Rangan

I write on economics, politics, business, finance, and productivity. To know me better, visit