Speaking for this libertarian, no: I arrive at my little-l libertarianism primarily because [I believe that, based on the evidence,] government is a terrible solution to most problems. There's this logic most people seem to use: "We have a problem. Let us legislate a solution where the government will fix it. (Magic happens here.) The problem is solved." and I can't seem to find evidence for the magic. I further observe that the vast majority of people using this logic don't even notice that step, because it simply goes without saying that governments can do pretty much anything.
There are exceptions, where some sort of fair analysis of governments vs. some other solution are done, but even most of those exceptions strike me as being awfully trusting of the monolithic centralized power source.
I am drawn to libertarian economics because the market actually provides a solution to the "magic happens here" step in the form of an emergent solution to problems arrived at by free agents each locally choosing their optimal outcomes, and I describe myself as "little-l" because there's still a role for government in that world (especially in internalizing externalities). This economic idea actually explains why we are where we are; we had governments for thousands of years, but it wasn't until free markets (and some supporting technology) that modern civilization really developed.
My point here is to provide a counterexample to your claim, not to directly advocate libertarianism here. My libertarianism is result, not cause.
I also firmly believe in looking at economics as they are, not as a theorist says they should be... again, "little-l libertarian". I do observe that an awful lot of macroeconomics, if not most of it, is really an agenda looking for evidence; I wonder if the subject is not so large that no human can possibly work the problem the other way in the span of one lifetime.
I don't think I disagree with you that much. All economics can tell us is that libertarian policies maximize wealth, they can't tell us "libertarian policies are good" or "we should adopt libertarian policies". Maybe I think it's more important to provide a social safety net than to maximize wealth. We would agree on the economic fact that there is a tradeoff here, but we would disagree on which side of the tradeoff to make. Just like engineering.
There are exceptions, where some sort of fair analysis of governments vs. some other solution are done, but even most of those exceptions strike me as being awfully trusting of the monolithic centralized power source.
I am drawn to libertarian economics because the market actually provides a solution to the "magic happens here" step in the form of an emergent solution to problems arrived at by free agents each locally choosing their optimal outcomes, and I describe myself as "little-l" because there's still a role for government in that world (especially in internalizing externalities). This economic idea actually explains why we are where we are; we had governments for thousands of years, but it wasn't until free markets (and some supporting technology) that modern civilization really developed.
My point here is to provide a counterexample to your claim, not to directly advocate libertarianism here. My libertarianism is result, not cause.
I also firmly believe in looking at economics as they are, not as a theorist says they should be... again, "little-l libertarian". I do observe that an awful lot of macroeconomics, if not most of it, is really an agenda looking for evidence; I wonder if the subject is not so large that no human can possibly work the problem the other way in the span of one lifetime.