Many entrepreneurs and VCs claim pure libertarianism is the only political position that makes sense. Here's why that doesn't work.

Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Rep. Ron Paul on the campaign trail earlier this year.

The task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. -- Ludwig von Mises

Silicon Valley is having a libertarian moment. When I say libertarian, Im referring to the purist strain most prominently embodied by Rep. Ron Paul and family, embraced by an increasing number of entrepreneurs and VCs.

But theres something uneasy about Silicon Valleys libertarianism, because the purist theory behind it doesnt quite square with the facts. The theory is that Silicon Valley doesnt need the government. The Pauls, in fact, recently wrote up amanifestoarguing [t]he true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have.

The facts suggest otherwise. The government has funded a wide variety of research critical to the technology industry and, more recently, supported a flourishing Internet sector with a very important piece of legislation requiring net neutrality. However, with the major exceptions of the foregoing, the government also has been problematic in its attempt to control Silicon Valleys new technologies and freedoms. Libertarianism may offer the single best ideological response--but only with important concessions to the role of government.

The Problems With SV Libertarianism

Lets stipulate that the government is an imperfect partner. SOPA, export controls, a medieval immigration policy, an IP system designed by Kafka, and incoherent tax policies provide plenty of libertarian ammunition.

Go here to see the original:

Silicon Valley's Libertarian Problem