Is there perhaps another side to this: that (another) libertarian vice is to hold the value of markets constant — namely, high? It seems to me that one of the central liberal critiques of libertarianism is that markets too can vary in value — and that often they become better markets through government action. Thus, financial markets are better with regulation to prevent insider trading and the like; food markets are better with regulations insisting that consumers be provided with accurate information about the contents of their purchases (the better to make informed decisions); real estate markets work better by eliminating irrational factors such as racial discrimination; monopolies ought to be broken up to increase competition; etc. I’m not saying that this analysis accounts for all liberal positions — health care is probably an exception, for instance — but it seems to me that in addition to trying to make governments better, liberals also believe that markets can be made better — that they’re not naturally good, but have to be made good.

They are ALL equally idealistic, and indeed every one of them would be acceptable if they worked as they were intended. I’d be perfectly happy in a neo-conservative fascist state if it really did provide all the benefits it advertised, we’d all be perfectly happy in a socialist state if people really were selfless enough to make it work, we’d all be happy in a libertarian minimalist state if market forces really did self-regulate the way they’re “supposed” to.

The problem of course is that NONE of the economic or social systems work the way they’re supposed to, so we’re all left debating ideals while implementing pragmatic compromises. It just becomes impossible to reach a good middle ground if Liberalism is singled out as being idealistic, while somehow libertarianism and conservatism are considered more “realistic”, despite them both depending equally on systems working in specific idealistic ways.