&gt; We might be using &quot;fantasy&quot; to mean different things<p>Fair.<p>&gt; I&#x27;m describing the libertarian fantasy such because it doesn&#x27;t reflect any history<p>That&#x27;s arguable, really, and depends on how one defines &quot;libertarian&quot;.  I tend to get lumped in with libertarians (and even self-profess to be one when the label is convenient), but depending on your definition, early America certainly can fit the bill.<p>Were there evils done in that time?  Absolutely.  Are there evils done today?  Absolutely.  For every agency you listed, I could list evils that they do as well, and more specifically, evils that benefit either only themselves or the corporations that have demanded them.  I agree that nothing is perfect, and I&#x27;m not necessarily suggesting that there isn&#x27;t a place for government protection from corporate evils -- but at the same time, it&#x27;s worth refraining from dismissing entire ideologies out of hand, especially as not every libertarian argument reflects the scenario you portrayed.<p>It&#x27;s also worth noting that the libertarian argument, or at least the constitutionalist argument, doesn&#x27;t mean that the abolition of, say, OSHA, will result in a complete and total lack of workplace safety regulation.  The states can and should enforce workplace safety standards, and as the states are (in theory) more answerable to their people, that should be more reflective of public will.<p>I definitely agree that nothing is a panacea, and I&#x27;m not really arguing in favor of either ideology, except to point out that just because A is not right, that doesn&#x27;t mean that B necessarily is.