>"Let’s knock this one out of the way now: despite what people at the mises institute would have you think, not a lot of couples divorce because of bitter arguments on the convertibility of the dollar to gold."
I share a lot of libertarian views, but can't go all in as it's followers have such a black & white view on things that are inherently grey. I agree that the government is inefficient at best and corrupt/murderous at worst (i.e. innocents given the death penalty), but getting rid of everything (e.g. EPA, FDA, USDA...etc) isn't the best thing either as firms will pollute and take health shortcuts as much as possible absent any laws which prevent it. Mainstream economics points out that monopolies are bad because there is no competition, so you either break them up or regulate them. Libertarians frequently adhere to Austrian economics and you have folks like Milei saying a market failure cannot occur and there is nothing wrong with monopolies. There are valid concerns regarding ineffective regulators and those captured by industry too.
Unfortunately, neither a full market based anarchy (i.e. government is there to basically only protect your property rights) or extreme regulations (immeasurable beauracracy)are the way to go IMO. What you want is something in between the two extremes. The question becomes where to draw the line (if this is familiar...it's the same argument as the Laffer curve for taxes). Progressives think it needs to shift one way and Conservatives the opposite. The true answer IMO is that some things need a lot more regulation and some things a lot less. A balanced view doesn't make for good sound bites though.