The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[Foxfyre]

Again, I think it should be decided by the people. First the citizens of Wyoming, for instance, should agree that Yellowstone be preserved for all future generations and not be privatized. And then there should be a national referendum of the people to support it as a National Park or preserve. Once that passes, then there is no problem with Yellowstone being fundedf by the people's treasury from now on. It is their choice and not a power given to the government to do on its own initiative.

I love Yellowstone, I worked there in my late teens and embraced it.

But you have the wrong idea. I worked for a concession company in Old Faithful Lodge as a waiter. It was a government contract so there was no competition. We served crappy food at outrageous prices. People paid because they had no other option. Bribes to the right government hacks ensured the company looter rights.

Once you left the park and went into West Yellowstone (Montana,) things changed - for the better. There was no destruction of the lands, but the roads were maintained and there was competition for services. Lodging was cheaper and eating establishments plentiful.

Yellowstone is an example of everything that's wrong with government ownership. I assure you that Disney or other private owners would not have let the park burn, the way the idiot envirowackos of the department of interior did.

83% of Yellowstone is not accessible to humans. Of the 17% that is, this includes the wilderness areas. Yellowstone would be far better off if it were privatized.

There are so many wonderful national treasures that should be preserved for all generations. Carlsbad Caverns, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, etc.

The question is whether the government is the only, or even the best steward of these assets.

And I think we all see those as national treasures and do not mind a small amount of our taxes going to maintain, preserve, and protect them. The Federal Government can always petition the people and sell them on the concept. But ultimately it should be the will of the people and not the prerogative of the governent to set aside public lands.

There are no "public" lands. There are government lands. The government owns and controls these lands. The public has no say at all over them.

But a courthouse and the lawn surrounding it certainly something the local people would choose. We've all probably voted on bond issues to build or update or add on to the local courthouse. But it belongs to the people. And they should be able to put a creche on it if they want one.

Honestly, I think courthouses are a place that issues of law should be decided. I object to them being ornate mansions erected to honor our ruling caste.

The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity. So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.

As for that local courthouse, we can't have it both ways. Short of violating the legal and unalienable rights of others, the people are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, or the government decides that for them. If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.

If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.

 

[bayoubill]

Libertarianism would never prohibit a local community from forming the society they wish. This is sniperfire's line of reasoning and it's fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism would prevent the majority from gaining too much power, this doesn't mean that the majorities rights are being violated because the majority doesn't have the right to impose it's will on the minority. I agree with most of your post but I feel this is an important distinction to make.

Libertarianism in its most extreme form would. For instance, that pesky creche on the Courthouse lawn. A truly free people would be able to vote to have it there or not have it there as they wanted. Libertarianism to the extreme would not allow it any more than extreme Leftism would allow it. Also extreme Libertarians object to zoning laws or any restrictions on how property owners will use their property. I know because I have had heated debates with a number of them right here at USMB. A people truly free to organize their society as they want it would be able to include what they enjoyed having and exclude what they didn't want so long as they don't violate anybody's unalienable rights,.

As long as this is a mutual agreement at the local level, it is not an infringement on anybody's rights. From the Federal level or even from the State level in some instances, it can be an infringement on what were intended to be unalienable rights.

A local government can infringe upon the rights of the individual and it is the purpose of the federal government to step in and disallow that from happening. If a local government decides that all public speeches must pass through the local committee before being allowed then this is a clear violation of my first amendment,even if the majority of the locals decide that this is what they want. The federal government is supposed to be the last recourse for the protection of our civil liberties and that in my opinion is why it so egregious when they violate them themselves. When the fed does it we have no other recourse except to attempt to change the fed.

In my opinion libertarians who oppose zoning laws haven't thought things through. No man is an island and what one does will in some way affect another. Zoning laws minimize the impact of an individuals decisions on the rights of innocents. Where you draw the line is debatable but in the end that type of discussion is the meat and potatoes of local government.

You say a truly free people would be able to vote on a creche but who is free when all are subjected to the rule of the majority? This time its a creche but next time it's about who should pay more taxes. You may feel like you are winning when you are part of the majority but at some point you won't be and what then?

I would say that the mark of a truly free society would be the lack of any religious adornment on public lands because it would show that no single group is dominant.

I'm a long-time libertarian... and I don't mind religious adornment on public lands...

 

[LibertyForAll]

Again, I think it should be decided by the people. First the citizens of Wyoming, for instance, should agree that Yellowstone be preserved for all future generations and not be privatized. And then there should be a national referendum of the people to support it as a National Park or preserve. Once that passes, then there is no problem with Yellowstone being fundedf by the people's treasury from now on. It is their choice and not a power given to the government to do on its own initiative.

I love Yellowstone, I worked there in my late teens and embraced it.

But you have the wrong idea. I worked for a concession company in Old Faithful Lodge as a waiter. It was a government contract so there was no competition. We served crappy food at outrageous prices. People paid because they had no other option. Bribes to the right government hacks ensured the company looter rights.

Once you left the park and went into West Yellowstone (Montana,) things changed - for the better. There was no destruction of the lands, but the roads were maintained and there was competition for services. Lodging was cheaper and eating establishments plentiful.

Yellowstone is an example of everything that's wrong with government ownership. I assure you that Disney or other private owners would not have let the park burn, the way the idiot envirowackos of the department of interior did.

83% of Yellowstone is not accessible to humans. Of the 17% that is, this includes the wilderness areas. Yellowstone would be far better off if it were privatized.



The question is whether the government is the only, or even the best steward of these assets.



There are no "public" lands. There are government lands. The government owns and controls these lands. The public has no say at all over them.

But a courthouse and the lawn surrounding it certainly something the local people would choose. We've all probably voted on bond issues to build or update or add on to the local courthouse. But it belongs to the people. And they should be able to put a creche on it if they want one.

Honestly, I think courthouses are a place that issues of law should be decided. I object to them being ornate mansions erected to honor our ruling caste.

The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity. So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.

As for that local courthouse, we can't have it both ways. Short of violating the legal and unalienable rights of others, the people are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, or the government decides that for them. If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.

If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.

I think you missed my point about a law that allows a specific religion to adorn a public area. If the government allows one religion and not other religions to do so then it is persecuting those other relgions by showing favoritism. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they should get it. If the majority thinks that women should cover their faces in public should we let them have their way? You have the right to practice your religion and you can adorn your own property in any way you wish. Why is this not enough? You do not have the right to impose your religion or your views on anyone else even if you have the majority behind you. Giving special rights and privileges to some while others are left in the cold definitely violates the unalienable rights of those in the cold. Let's turn it around and say they decided to ban your creche and let other religions put up their symbols instead. Wouldn't you take exception then? The law you propose effectively isolates every other religion besides the one sanctioned by the government.
The founders chose a republic for a reason, it's the best way to ensure that everyone's rights are protected equally.

 

[starcraftzzz]

how can it be a stinky choice when Republicans put Thomas Roberts Scalia and Alito on the Court. You don't seem to understand that if Romney gets just one more on the whole treasonous liberal structure could begin to crumble like a house of cards.

You've actually hit upon the main reason why I will likely vote for Romney - judges. I sure hope you're right about who he appoints and the possible outcome for the central planners.

The stinky factor comes in with so many of his other policies, which I view as big government meddling.

yes but consider that the odds look very good for Republicans in Congress too ( if only by virtue of which party's seats are up this time, not to mention BOs depression) so a Tea Party Congress against Romney will get us a great deal further than a Tea party Congress against Obama. We've looking at a possible sea change.

Yep more government mandate that women have stuff stuck up their vaginas, removing legal protections for women, less birth control, more military spending, no more health care for old or poor people no more food stamps such great things

 

[Foxfyre]

I love Yellowstone, I worked there in my late teens and embraced it.

But you have the wrong idea. I worked for a concession company in Old Faithful Lodge as a waiter. It was a government contract so there was no competition. We served crappy food at outrageous prices. People paid because they had no other option. Bribes to the right government hacks ensured the company looter rights.

Once you left the park and went into West Yellowstone (Montana,) things changed - for the better. There was no destruction of the lands, but the roads were maintained and there was competition for services. Lodging was cheaper and eating establishments plentiful.

Yellowstone is an example of everything that's wrong with government ownership. I assure you that Disney or other private owners would not have let the park burn, the way the idiot envirowackos of the department of interior did.

83% of Yellowstone is not accessible to humans. Of the 17% that is, this includes the wilderness areas. Yellowstone would be far better off if it were privatized.



The question is whether the government is the only, or even the best steward of these assets.



There are no "public" lands. There are government lands. The government owns and controls these lands. The public has no say at all over them.



Honestly, I think courthouses are a place that issues of law should be decided. I object to them being ornate mansions erected to honor our ruling caste.

The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity. So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.

As for that local courthouse, we can't have it both ways. Short of violating the legal and unalienable rights of others, the people are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, or the government decides that for them. If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.

If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.

I think you missed my point about a law that allows a specific religion to adorn a public area. If the government allows one religion and not other religions to do so then it is persecuting those other relgions by showing favoritism. Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean they should get it. If the majority thinks that women should cover their faces in public should we let them have their way? You have the right to practice your religion and you can adorn your own property in any way you wish. Why is this not enough? You do not have the right to impose your religion or your views on anyone else even if you have the majority behind you. Giving special rights and privileges to some while others are left in the cold definitely violates the unalienable rights of those in the cold. Let's turn it around and say they decided to ban your creche and let other religions put up their symbols instead. Wouldn't you take exception then? The law you propose effectively isolates every other religion besides the one sanctioned by the government.
The founders chose a republic for a reason, it's the best way to ensure that everyone's rights are protected equally.

I would agree that if the Jews want a Star of David or a Minorrah on the Courthouse lawn during Hanukah or whatever religious group wants to commemorate their holiday, that should also be allowed if the policy is to allow the creche. But it should not be government deciding in either case but rather the will of the people in the community should decide whether decorations are to be allowed. Usually such things are a community tradition spanning decades making the creche more of a historical relic than a religious symbol.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity.

I don't agree, and neither did the founders, which is why they didn't take lands as "commons" or public lands. The belief was only the states and communities had the right to designate commons.

So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.

Corruption is simply part of government ownership. An extremely valuable asset is owned by the rulers, and managed by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats will sell access to the asset every time. Corruption is always going to be present when government has substantial assets that are granted to a select few.

As for that local courthouse, we can't have it both ways. Short of violating the legal and unalienable rights of others, the people are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, or the government decides that for them.

I have no objection to religious displays, but a courthouse should be nothing more than an office building where business is conducted. The desire to put up displays is because our courthouses are grand palaces. The should not be. The fact that these grand palaces exist are the first clue who is the servant, and who is the master. It is not the servant who lives in the palace.

If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.

I realize that my views are in the minority. But they are slowly gaining.

If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.

Again, I don't care about the creche. Why is the courthouse a palace? Why does it even have a lawn?

 

[Foxfyre]

The government as the Founders envisioned it would be a good steward of those public lands set aside to be preserved for all posterity.

I don't agree, and neither did the founders, which is why they didn't take lands as "commons" or public lands. The belief was only the states and communities had the right to designate commons.

So though I believe you that mismanagement has occurred, I do not believe that has to be the norm. I always look beyond the what is to the what should be or what could be or what will be.

Corruption is simply part of government ownership. An extremely valuable asset is owned by the rulers, and managed by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats will sell access to the asset every time. Corruption is always going to be present when government has substantial assets that are granted to a select few.



I have no objection to religious displays, but a courthouse should be nothing more than an office building where business is conducted. The desire to put up displays is because our courthouses are grand palaces. The should not be. The fact that these grand palaces exist are the first clue who is the servant, and who is the master. It is not the servant who lives in the palace.

If most of the people feel as you do about the courthouse, they will vote not to adorn it with a creche (or anything else.) And the will of the people in that regard should prevail. But it should be the people who built and funded and utilize that courthouse who should decide it and not the ACLU or somebody in Washington.

I realize that my views are in the minority. But they are slowly gaining.

If the majority of the people enjoy and are happy having the creche on the courthouse lawn, then they should be free to have it. That also should not be decided by somebody in the next town or in the State House or in Washington or the ACLU.

Again, I don't care about the creche. Why is the courthouse a palace? Why does it even have a lawn?

It is our courthouse and it occupies a prominent place in the downtown area of the community. The lawn and the landscaping add to the general beauty and are enjoyed by the entire community. It is not a palace. It is the place where the people conduct business necessary to the community. And if we want it to be a work of art, we should be able to have a work of art. It adds to the aesthetics and atmosphere of the town. If we don't want to fund an architectural masterpiece, we don't have to. We can reject the bonds necessary to build the courthouse and opt for something more simple and utilitarian.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

We've had some difficulty in agreeing on what Libertarianism is.

Those who go with the more political concepts of libertarianism tend to support a more extreme application than the Founders' concept of libertarianism/aka classical liberalism. Some do seem to want to deregulate almost everything while we classical liberals see a role for regulation that secures our unalienable rights.

I don't know of any libertarian views. however, that reject free market concepts, so if that is the only focus of the OP, then we do have a basis for a good debate. The pros and cons of regulation that keeps us from doing economic or physical violence to each other is a different topic but can also be the basis for a good debate.

 

[Oddball]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

He doesn't learn jack shit...And he's still sure that his hallucination on what constitutes truly free markets and libertarian philosophy is reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

 

[dblack]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

But a true libertarian allows people to be as subordinate as they want. As long as it is a mutual arrangement then all is well. The libertarian just doesn't wish to be put in the position of having to pay for the other having the luxury of being subordinate. Live and let live. Each to their own. But leave me out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has the starter of this threat learned that what he thought was a flaw in libertarinism is not a flaw?? Gee he seemd so sure of himself.

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

Read my signature, that is not a flaw with libertarianism.

 

[flacaltenn]

The big flaw in libertarianism is that the guy who started this thread gets a headache when he tries to think for himself.

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

But a true libertarian allows people to be as subordinate as they want. As long as it is a mutual arrangement then all is well. The libertarian just doesn't wish to be put in the position of having to pay for the other having the luxury of being subordinate. Live and let live. Each to their own. But leave me out of it.

Not so sure about that Foxy.. Certainly no one here condones slavery or deceit - let alone libertarians. So I'm not sure that we'd look at true at voluntary submission as a victimless crime UNLESS the dominating party to the agreement has pure motives.

So in the case of subordinating to power (govt or corp) --- I'd work to restrain any power that tried to capitalize on the weak or gullible.

Does that mean I'd go rogue on the homeopathic drug providers for instance? Probably not -- but I'd do everything I could to educate the public to the fraud..

 

[bripat9643]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

Libertarianism doesn't assume that, so your claim is wrong. of course, there are plenty of authoritarians who will do anything to prevent a libertarian society from coming into existence, but that doesn't mean that if it somehow overcame these obstacles that it wouldn't be a good social arrangement.

 

[Foxfyre]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

But a true libertarian allows people to be as subordinate as they want. As long as it is a mutual arrangement then all is well. The libertarian just doesn't wish to be put in the position of having to pay for the other having the luxury of being subordinate. Live and let live. Each to their own. But leave me out of it.

Not so sure about that Foxy.. Certainly no one here condones slavery or deceit - let alone libertarians. So I'm not sure that we'd look at true at voluntary submission as a victimless crime UNLESS the dominating party to the agreement has pure motives.

So in the case of subordinating to power (govt or corp) --- I'd work to restrain any power that tried to capitalize on the weak or gullible.

Does that mean I'd go rogue on the homeopathic drug providers for instance? Probably not -- but I'd do everything I could to educate the public to the fraud..

Well I'm pretty sure dblack didn't have slavery in mind when he opined on voluntary subordination. But certainly there are many people who are willing to give up their liberty in favor of subordination to government so long as government provides them with cash, food stamps, free health care, free or subsidized housing, etc. They are comfortable in that role and do not want to be responsible for themselves.

There are some adult children who are quite content to have their parents support them; there are both women and men quite willing to be the 'kept' companion of another who is willing to 'keep' them.

A libertarian allows others to be as lazy and/or subordinate as they choose. A libertatrian would strongly object to anybody forcing somebody else to be subordinate, however--it must be a choice.

And the libertarian does not want to be in the position of being forced to pay for the choices that others make.

 

[dblack]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

But a true libertarian allows people to be as subordinate as they want. As long as it is a mutual arrangement then all is well. The libertarian just doesn't wish to be put in the position of having to pay for the other having the luxury of being subordinate. Live and let live. Each to their own. But leave me out of it.

Not so sure about that Foxy.. Certainly no one here condones slavery or deceit - let alone libertarians. So I'm not sure that we'd look at true at voluntary submission as a victimless crime UNLESS the dominating party to the agreement has pure motives.

So in the case of subordinating to power (govt or corp) --- I'd work to restrain any power that tried to capitalize on the weak or gullible.

Does that mean I'd go rogue on the homeopathic drug providers for instance? Probably not -- but I'd do everything I could to educate the public to the fraud..

And how do you divine 'pure motives'?

But before we get to that, let's unmuddy the argument a bit. Foxfyre is referring to the subordination of people via government - the only institution we authorize to wield force to reach its ends. It seems you're angling for something different: to defend the 'weak or gullible' from their own choices. And this indulges the core conceit of the statist - namely the presumption that you (or various authorities) know what's best for people and are entitled to override their decisions when they don't abide.

It's fine and necessary to disallow contractual agreements - even if nominally voluntary - when one of the parties has been deceived or didn't understand what they were agreeing to. But your phrasing leads me to believe you're arguing for something more. Am I misreading you?

 

[dblack]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

Libertarianism doesn't assume that, so your claim is wrong. of course, there are plenty of authoritarians who will do anything to prevent a libertarian society from coming into existence, but that doesn't mean that if it somehow overcame these obstacles that it wouldn't be a good social arrangement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

 

[Foxfyre]

The biggest flaw of libertarianism is that it assumes everyone values freedom. The simple fact is, many do not. There are plenty of people who prefer the security of subordinating themselves to the domination of others - and there are plenty of people ready and willing to do the dominating. For many people this is the 'natural order' of things.

Libertarianism doesn't assume that, so your claim is wrong. of course, there are plenty of authoritarians who will do anything to prevent a libertarian society from coming into existence, but that doesn't mean that if it somehow overcame these obstacles that it wouldn't be a good social arrangement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems you missed my point, which is just that libertarianism won't work if people don't appreciate liberty.

What I read into Bripat's post is that pure libertarianism as practiced and promoted by the Founders allowed for people to do freedom badly. Towit some of the little theocracies, quite oppressive and limiting of freedom, that developed in some of the colonies, and other mini societies that were practically lawless and violent.

But the Founders also trusted the human spirit, tempered by JudeoChristian influence, would eventually figure out how to do it better. And by the end of the Eighteenth Century, all those little theocracies had voluntarily dissolved, and by the end of the Nineteenth Century, all the communities that had experienced their hellfire days had moderated and established law and justice.

So true Libertarianism allows the kind of freedom that allows people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have short of violating the unalienable rights of others. It allows people to get it wrong, to make mistakes, to screw up. And it expects those people to accept the consequences of the choices they make and not expect other people to clean up their mess on their behalf.

Voluntary charity, benevolence, hand up etc., is a good thing and is commendable. Forced charity, benevolence, a hand up etc. is forced subordination and contrary to all Libertarian concepts.