An interesting comment thread recently appeared on this post at Real Debate Wisconsin talking about whether there is a tax you'd ever disapprove of as a Democrat (and the converse question was posed for Republicans).  As a good libertarian, I had this to say:

1. The Healthy Wisconsin proposal WILL cost more than is advertised, and will certainly cost ME more even as currently advertised.

2. There is not a single tax which I would be in favor of at this point. Period. It's fun to be a libertarian.

Simple and very honest.  No tax.  Period.  If you want to spend more, I suggest you cut somewhere else.  There is plenty to cut.  Scott Feldstein responded to that comment with this, which in part reads:

Libertarianism has always struck me as embarrassingly simplistic and hopelessly naive. The idea that if we simply abolish government services as we know them that - like magic - self-interest and Adam Smith's invisible hand will produce Utopia is ludicrous.

I was a little surprised by this to be honest.  As a libertarian in relatively good standing, I don't think I've ever been accused of being a Utopian.  I suppose that was the point... Utopia can't be come from libertarianism.  What's interesting about Scott's comment is that it implies that not only is utopia possible, but that it's something we should be striving for.  I have no such dreams of Utopia.  Utopia is simply not possible.  I know this because I know that human beings are fallible.  We are greedy.  We are self interested.  These facts prevent Utopia from ever coming into being.

The problem is that there is a large segment of the population that believe that Utopia is possible, and that it's worth striving to achieve.  The usual route to this Utopia has been an increase in the size and involvement of government in our daily lives.  And while I know of no liberal who would ever suggest that Utopia is genuinely possible... most will argue that even if impossible to achieve, it's worthwhile getting as close as we can... usually through some form of government involvement.

The problem with this is that people are fallible, greedy and self interested.  These same people are the ones who will be in charge of government.  And so while many would be happy to hand over the reigns of their life to those in government in exchange for the hope of coming closer to some Utopian fantasy, they are in fact handing over the reigns of their life to fallible, greedy, self interested humans who are more interested in making their own lives better (using your funds), and not interested in making yours any better.  Not only are they handing over the reigns, but they are also handing over the ability to resist government influence once you're given up control.  Government not only has the power to tax, but the power to jail or kill those who resist.

In this life, there is only one person you can truly count on.  Yourself.  The problem with the liberal attempts to coming closer to Utopia is that the more they try, the harder they make it for me to depend on myself.  It's not about my getting used to the government helping me, and getting lazy.  It's now getting to the point where government actively stops me from helping myself, and forces me to depend on government.

And to be honest... I just don't like the choices government makes for me.  That's not utopia.  That's hell.  Libertarian ideals don't lead to Utopia... that's not our goal.  They simply lead to the ability of free people to make choices about their lives as they see fit (not as someone else would have you live your life), and live with the consequences.  For most liberals, it's the second half that causes the problems.  I accept that negative consequences are an inherent result from our ability to make choices.  That is not a reason to stop people from choosing.  Some things just are what they are.