In the case of academic Marxists, they could get away with "purity" because the disputed cases of "communism" were about far away secretive countries. In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending. Having a background in economics, where they specialize in this thinking, I don't buy the ideal versus non-ideal theory distinction as feasible. Economic models are notorious for assuming ideals like no transaction costs and perfect information, and they are not going to let reality get in the way of their perfect models. For instance in reality: small government can more easily be captured by large corporations; advertising is largely lies and misinformation; the global economic system is a subsystem of the Earth's ecosystems, and cannot grow bigger than the latter without threatening our survival. Over the last fifty years we have witnessed Fossil Fuel companies gain a deeper control over the American political process, basically buying off the Republican party and allying themselves with Christian Nationalists in order to protect their industry and forestall attempts to transition to renewable energy. Ask yourself why would American Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics support the cause of Fossil Fuel companies? Obviously it has nothing to do with Christianity. What it has to do with is the financial backing that these companies give to support the Republican party's culture war crusades. It's interesting that the one economic solution that honours the free market - a carbon tax - has been rendered moot by the Right, wherever they have power. Which makes me believe that it is not about preserving the free market, it's about preserving the power and dominance of the Fossil Fuel industry.
"Academic libertarianism" reminds me a lot of "Academic Marxism" , that is, people I've known who say that the Soviet Union was not really communist, it was "State Capitalism" or some other portmanteau. In other words, they are purists who reject the real-world compromises that every polity of every sort have to make in order to work.
In the case of academic Marxists, they could get away with "purity" because the disputed cases of "communism" were about far away secretive countries. In the case of academic libertarians, they get away with arguing for libertarian purity, because, almost by definition, any government implementation of a libertarian program is bound to be "too much government", except when it is cutting taxes, or cutting spending. Having a background in economics, where they specialize in this thinking, I don't buy the ideal versus non-ideal theory distinction as feasible. Economic models are notorious for assuming ideals like no transaction costs and perfect information, and they are not going to let reality get in the way of their perfect models. For instance in reality: small government can more easily be captured by large corporations; advertising is largely lies and misinformation; the global economic system is a subsystem of the Earth's ecosystems, and cannot grow bigger than the latter without threatening our survival. Over the last fifty years we have witnessed Fossil Fuel companies gain a deeper control over the American political process, basically buying off the Republican party and allying themselves with Christian Nationalists in order to protect their industry and forestall attempts to transition to renewable energy. Ask yourself why would American Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics support the cause of Fossil Fuel companies? Obviously it has nothing to do with Christianity. What it has to do with is the financial backing that these companies give to support the Republican party's culture war crusades. It's interesting that the one economic solution that honours the free market - a carbon tax - has been rendered moot by the Right, wherever they have power. Which makes me believe that it is not about preserving the free market, it's about preserving the power and dominance of the Fossil Fuel industry.
"Academic libertarianism" reminds me a lot of "Academic Marxism" , that is, people I've known who say that the Soviet Union was not really communist, it was "State Capitalism" or some other portmanteau. In other words, they are purists who reject the real-world compromises that every polity of every sort have to make in order to work.