Libertarianism is based on persuasion as the means of change within society, instead of force. Communistic regimes have no qualms about enforcing their enlightened view of humanity on everyone else because their goal of global equality does not have to respect the rights of individuals. Individuals are not important in the quest for collective equality.
This poses an unsettling dilemma for libertarians. Not only do they have to persuade without force, but they face the disadvantage of having to compete with the blunt tactics of the Left.
Even if libertarians were successful enough to promote limited government, how would they maintain the furthest extent of freedom? It seems to be only a matter of time before the members of a community begin expecting their government to meet their needs. An attitude of entitlement ensues. The greed of certain members colludes with members of government to advance their narrow petty interests at the expense of the freedom of every other member.
How does a libertarian propose to maintain the status quo of a limited government? Rothbard’s suggestion that the State should be eliminated entirely is utter nonsense. We have governments in order to protect our rights, even if that ultimately amounts to a necessary evil to some. Government in itself is not the problem. How the citizens of a community choose to define government, there is the real question. Rothbard’s broad desire to wipe out government is unacceptable, if not unfeasible.
Rothbard claims that the Taoist philosophers were Retreatists, convinced that their philosophy of Laissez-Faire would never reach to the heights of government. I disagree. They did not write their views of government in paradoxes because they believed that their desire for government inaction was impossible. I believe that Lao-Tzu and his proto-libertarian contemporaries wrote in paradoxes because the wanted to emphasis the importance and radical nature of their proposals.