Why I'm Libertarian Even Though It Doesn't Work; the Government/Society Divide

Credit to @John Shirley and @Joe Cosby for inspiring this post, which BTW is shamelessly copied from a Facebook comment thread, found here for those that would like it in context: 

If you believe that Libertarianism is impractical, I would agree with you completely. But the fact is, if I were to choose between happiness and order, and freedom, I'll choose freedom without hesitation. I'm an idealist and frankly I don't believe in any government. Libertarianism is in many ways just a political movement, philosophical foundation, and intellectual rationale for anarchists to rally under. In many ways, most libertarianists are just a convoluted mix of anarchists who want to be taken seriously. Anarchy generally isn't taken seriously as a form of government by anyone but anarchists. Libertarianism on the other hand-- well, just look at the huge crowds Ron Paul drew!

 I don't believe that the states should have the power either, this would just be a transitionary step to to a stateless society. Pretty much like Communism, but the opposite approach. Anarcho-Communism, if you will. There is a philosophy like it called "Anarcho-syndicalism", although it gets the same treatment you've given to Libertarian beliefs, as being unrealistic, and rightfully so, because it isn't. My unrealistic beliefs (and their benefits in comparison with the existing system) regarding this are here, if you're interested :-) 

@John Shirley response: "If you like you can say idealistic. I have often said that anarchism would be good in a society of mature people. But mature, to me, also means relatively unselfish people who don't pollute the environment, who aren't easily biased against (non criminal) types of people. And I think we're at least a 1000 years from that society"

My response: I agree for the most part. I just believe that for the same reason (people are selfish) controlling people doesn't work each. So Anarchism breeds chaos and exploitation, and Strong government breeds FUD and corruption. Right now the best-case scenario would lie somewhere between the two, something that America had fairly consistently throughout the 19th century, but somehow most people "forgot" about after the (now supposedly-dead) American Progressivism Era. That kind of balance is what I believe America needs, and it would make for the best realistic compromise IMO. 

@John Shirley's response: "I think a feeble government (as opposed to one that's healthily empowered, not undemocratically empowered, not oppressively empowered) is more likely to promote corruption and especially to allow people to prey on other people, in business, in labor, and so on. But once someone's got the toxic meme of "government is bad and scary" in their system it's difficult to get it out of them. They don't perceive good govt as what it really is: an extension of the will of the people. Government IS a social bond. Government is us, you and me, and people we appoint. Government is modulated by consensus. It varies in quality, it varies in democratic ideals, but actually it works far better than social spinelessness."I agree with you that a degree of robust regulation is necessary to ensure socio-economic fairness, my disagreement is that it should be done primarily by the government. To minimize corruption, the majority of affairs should be regulated and optimized by Society, with the government's role being as a supporting role and overseer, kinda like the archetypal husband-wife relationship.

If I am understanding you correctly, we are in agreement on all points but on which roles the actors take on. For you, the situation is reversed: Society is more intuitive (like a wife), and is thus best suited to the supporting and overseer role, rearing the children healthily while the husband (the government) has the final say and what the children can and cannot do, and what freedoms they are permitted. The government is more rational and effective at managing people, and so is more suited as the metaphorical head of the household that is America.

This makes a great deal of sense, and I am inclined to agree with you in sight of this relationship, except that at least in the last several years, the government has proven itself to be both less rational and more spineless than the Society supporting it.