Now just look at that picture above. Under libertarianism, the sole purpose of government is security. So sending tomahowk is okay. Welfare and healtcare is not. Is it a good idea? Probably. Would most people agree with it? May be not.
I think libertarianism is fine. I like libertarianism. However, it's too unnatural. There are many reasonable reasons why people do not like libertarianism.
Imagine if you're Kim Jong Un, would you support libertarianism? No. Why not? Because it's not to your best interest. Now think of hordes of majestic welfare parasites like Kim Jong Un. Right or wrong, people vote their interests right?
Imagine if your country is like a shop. Imagine if the citizens are stockholders.
We can see a country as a big corporation selling "protection service". That country is controlled by stockholders of the big corporations, namely the citizens.
Libertarians are like people saying shops should sell their products at cost and citizens shouldn't have power to profit from their shops. It doesn't make sense. It won't happens.
And those are pretty inconsistent. Under libertarianism, only government shops cannot profit from their shops. All other shops are fine. That's pretty strange right?
I'll give an example.
What to do with drugs?
Libertarians would say legalize it.
I saw a problem there.
Imagine if someone wants something no other shops sell. You are the only shops selling those. Of course you charge high.
Most other countries prohibit that. Why are you legalizing it for free? A moderate solution would be to tax that like hell and pay dividend to all citizens.
So basically, libertarians, are people that think governments should run like a free non profit shops. That the citizens, kings, or whoever have power, do not have right to take advantage of their power.
Libertarian are based on NAP. Why shouldn't more powerful people charge "protection money" from those they protect? Why should they protect for free or at costs? Of course powerful people would use their power to max out their profit.
Is it wrong? There is no one right answer. One thing for sure is, saying that it's wrong won't do much. Nature don't have right and wrong. Nature is just is.
Large number of citizens in any country can be more profited if their country is not fully libertarians. Or at least they think they do. Quite often they're correct. So of course they prefer more moderate solutions than libertarianism.
Welfare parasites won't get welfare if libertarian wins.
Many americans won't get job if they have to compete with immigrants.
Big companies will face lower margin if the world is libertarians. Currently many big companies are profited by government regulatory cartel.
Most poor men won't be able to afford a hot babe if polygamy and prostitution were legal. Women would simply sell themselves to highest bidders.
Ugly women will be relatively less happy than beautiful women if feminazism is gone.
The way humans' happiness works is relative happiness is more important than absolute happiness. Many people, out of envy, will vote out anything that give their co species competitors more than advantage than them.
Libertarians approach is all those are wrong/parasites/etc.
In democracy or any system, you need more than just saying wrong. You need to show them more profitable alternatives. Those more profitable alternatives may be closer to libertarianism but still more profitable to people.
For example, a political party, may, for example, promise cash dividend instead of welfare to welfare parasites with no kids. Most welfare parasites would be happy and vote for those and make less kids.
But libertarians can't see that those welfare parasites can vote. They would just say, ah, welfare is wrong, you should starve. So hordes of welfare parasites and those that fear to be on welfare too would not vote libertarians.