

This is a difficult problem for which there is no obviously good
solution.  One approach is simply to try and move political opinion
and hope a new more libertarian consensus lasts for a while.  Another
approach is to try and amend the constitution.  The original
constitution restrained the U.S. government from economic intervention
for 100 to 150 years, depending on just how one wants to count it.
The First Amendment, though weakened in many ways, still restrains
government (particularly state and local), even though on many
particular issues the majority is in favor of censorship.  I think
libertarians would be happy with another 100 years of restraint via
an amendment or two (not that I think that's likely to happen).

Not necessarily Mr. Hendricks, but other posters seem to see this as
a problem with libertarianism, that it cannot be stable.  That might
be true, but it is not an objection to libertarianism per se.  If
a libertarian political consensus forms for a decade or two and then
falls apart again, we would just be back where we are now.  This is
unlike the case for socialism where a socialist consensus that held
for a while and then fell apart would not leave us where we are now,
but instead with lots of bureaucracy that would be hard to get rid of,
if not tyranny as the end condition of a strong socialist consensus.