Libertarianism hardly maintains the monopoly on Capitalism. Socialism itself was never in practice in North Korea especially (which could barely even be conside

Libertarianism hardly maintains the monopoly on Capitalism. Socialism itself was never in practice in North Korea especially (which could barely even be considered Communist), nor anywhere else in the world, really. Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully. Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere. While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare". If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term). Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.