Libertarianism can be based on experience as conservatives do. I do not doubt that if people could observe a libertarian/capitalist regime in practice and compare it with monarchism, socialism, syndicalism, etc., many would see the enormous benefits of freedom and choose Libertarianism. In making arguments for liberty, John Stuart Mill, of course, focused on practical (utilitarianism) arguments that it produced the greatest good for the greatest number and I believe that a libertarian-capitalist regime does that. But one question is: how does a full, working libertarian regime come into existence in the first place? How does on advocate it before it exists and we have experience of its benefits? Also, how to defend it since there always will be intellectuals prepared to argue that there are benefits higher than freedom: for example, eternal salvation of the soul, living a virtuous life, preventing ugly excesses that liberty permits. When Irving Kristol went from communist to capitalist, he wrote "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and, also, an essay, "When Virtue Loses All Her Loveliness." Capitalism worked but it was esthetically hard to take. And then, how to defend liberty against being gnawed away by constant compromises? Sure, liberals would say, today, we need to be free and we love the benefits of "the market," but you can have those and still have a robust welfare state. And you can keep having more intervention while the market is working--until suddenly the market not longer does not "work," liberty is gone, and even advocating it may come under censorship. It is only philosophy, fundamental principles about man's nature, the nature and role of reason that operates volitionally, the connection between reason and innovation and survival that enable one to argue in principle that encroachments on liberty may appear at first to be harmless but in principle you are headed in a wrong and disastrous direction. And Ayn Rand showed us, brilliantly and in detail, because defenders of capitalism could not make a philosophical case against altruism, a Christian society in the end would not tolerate the selfishness that capitalism involved. And the Christians who supported capitalism tried every possible argument from results of capitalism--and kept losing and losing, as we know. So an ethics of selfishness must be defended because capitalism indeed is the politics of pursuit of one's own happiness. And that ethic of selfishness cannot be defended without reference to man's nature, the nature and role of values, and the connection between freedom of judgment and action and achievement of ones highest value: maintaining and fulfilling ones own life. Which only consistent freedom makes possible.

•