Libertarianism is a morally bankrupt political philosophy.

Put this on Facebook, but I' putting it here too.

Libertarianism is a morally bankrupt political philosophy.

It's consistently disappointing to me when I discover that certain circles I run in have people who think libertarian ideas are credible, who think it's okay to let people starve in the street, die from curable medical problems or die from exposure because they don't have anywhere to live, who think, in short, that's it's okay for people to die because they are poor. Because when you say the government shouldn't take care of people who are too poor to take care of themselves, that is what you're saying.

And when I realize that I can't get this through to people, that they won't listen, I get sick to my stomach. It makes me physically ill. And I don't know what to do about it.

Comments

symmetry

> And when I realize that I can't get this through to people, that they won't listen, I get sick to my stomach.

So you argue with them, and they don't change, and they argue with you, and you don't change...and the problem is 100% on their side?

Hmmm. Interesting.

You're acting like the

You're acting like the arguments are equal, and they're not.

But then, you're not actually addressing the content of what I wrote at all. Just being like a Creationist telling people to 'teach the controversy' as if both sides were equally valid.

you have two options, the

you have two options, the first to cuss these people out for being ignorant fucking assholes like I do and you complain about me doing, but fuck dude sometimes its the only rational response.

your second option is to rock this shit:
http://youtu.be/3y0Yo3yZrPA

These are not mutually exclusive courses of action.

Who the Fuck Cares!

Your political mindset doesn't fucking matter: Liberal, conservative, Libertarian, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are all primitive ideologies! All of these ideologies are based on scarcity and market economies, which are morally bankrupt. It's like talking about what religion is better, it doesn't fucking matter.

How about we move towards a RESOURCE based economy that has abundance for everyone. It's based off technology, there's no money, no politics, no corporations and small councils instead of big murdering governments. This is the next phase of humanity: www.zeitgeistmovie.com

The Zeitgeist movement is a

The Zeitgeist movement is a morass of unworkable utopianism. I would love it if someone could get a Zeitgeist type society to work, but I think the most likely result of an attempt would be like most attempts at radical utopian change: a bloody revolution and a failed state full of poverty and death.

you're an idiot. communism is

you're an idiot. communism is specifically opposed to markets. the notion of a resource based economy is incoherent because it fails to understand the relationship between production and consumption of commodities. and if i was going to join a cult, it would be the raelians because at least they've got hot strippers who believe in free love as a major part of their contingency.

...

Wow, I mean, WOW. I have tried so hard to ignore this for so many years and yet it keeps popping up. Did South Park cover this at some point?

Your arguments are not always

Your arguments are not always valid, I would say that most libertarians are in favor of independent or private organizations helping those in need, but I don't know most libertarians. The ones I do personally know, myself included, are in favor of private organizations (i.e. churches, community activist groups) helping the needy. The problem, at least in America, arises when the federal government gets involved in something like that because they have no enumerated right to do so, If each individual state did it, no big deal, to each their own, but the United States Federal Government doesn't have that right because it's not enumerated in The Constitution and 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, is reserved to the state or the individual. Outside the United States I cannot speak for the situations there, but again the basic premise of libertarianism isn't to let people die, it's less government involvement. If there was less government involvement in things like monetary food assistance programs, let's say for instance that the federal government didn't have an office that dictated policy on this program, that would mean more money in the federal budget (because we would have less federal employees to pay salaries, less paper to buy for forms etc), or less taxes that need to be collected. This frees up either 1) more money that the state or local government entities could collect from it's constituents and dole out to the needy or 2) more disposable income that each person would have to possibly donate to community action organizations or churches who are there to help the needy.

The problem with private

The problem with private organizations being responsible for feeding the poor, is what happens if the private organization runs out of money? Then the poor are up shit creek.

The problem with only states feeding the poor is what is the state decides not to do so? Then the poor are up shit creek.

Whether or not the government has the "enumerated right" to feed the poor is a matter for the Supreme Court. But as far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't yet said that the government doesn't have that right.

how bout you leave the

how bout you leave the constitutional stuff to me...

You act like you've studied

You act like you've studied constitutional law in a formal setting or something...

yeah i know, me and my big

yeah i know, me and my big head and my absurd collection of meaningless sheepskin. fucking college educated intellectuals.

...

Although our Federal Government has run out of money, it seems that all of my wonderful communist type pals seem to think much like mayor Bloomberg that this debt can go on to infinity without any consequences. Based on the boondoggle that the last 80 or more years of Socialism has created, I see no hope at all for any system that thinks the answer is to increase the individual and working worlds dependence on a centralized pyramid scheme that keeps claiming there is no consequence for its actions.

I know for a fact that typing this here is pointless, but regardless it seems that the socialist way has been tried over and over and over again in multiple countries and the end result is always the same. I think what I am more interested in these days is letting loose of all these laws and rules and obligations in a smart way and then seeing what happens to systems as they self organize. Sometimes I think the real reason that any loss of control for the government is opposed is that a nations citizens will see that they can still exist by the same standards without loosing 50 to 60% of their income. I mean it truly confounds me that in the last 15 years or so that our Federal system has somehow managed to blow 8 trillion dollars and absolutely nothing has gotten better in any economic sense. So, in effect, the central powers that currently exist, and all of their current socialist policies, have bought what? What has gotten better? Better drones? More power to threaten journalist? More people on food stamps? More people on disability? Is this what we are working toward? More ability to take out small countries that piss us off or need a new dictator? Is this the new new?

Tim, if you think the last 80

Tim, if you think the last 80 years of American history was socialism, then you have no idea what the word socialism means.

Consider this: http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

...

I sincerely do think that the United States has slowly transformed into a socialist country. At this stage it seems to be a quasi fascist thing. No, not like Hitler and Mussilini, but somewhat like what Mussilini would have hoped for I think. It is socialist government policy working hand in hand with corporate backing. I am aware that the socialist game plan is to make a level playing field in wages and healthcare and so on - and it has and IS attempting to do just that. It is weird to me to think for a moment that EVERY modern Euro socialist country I went to that I am supposed to pretend that the wealth inequality did not exist when I saw it practically everywhere I went.
The problem is (to me at least) is that if humanity wasn't comprised of millions of individual natures that in the end are self centered creatures, then I would say - fuck yeah, balls on the table for socialism! But the problem is that individuals are crafty and will find means to make that supposed level playing field give them more than the other guy, and the other family. And over time the more that other people see that the guys who "don't play ball" are actually getting ahead the less they will care about the system that is making things "fair". It is why every centralized socialist endeavor fails in some sense. There are guys that you think are 100% allied to it and when the eyes aren't on them they game the fucking system like the system was chump. And really, when you centralize, you get Byzantine. And when you Byzantine, you get corruption. It is human nature. It will always be that way until humans can be literally programmed.

Again, if you think socialism

Again, if you think socialism and fascism are the same thing then you don't know what either of those words mean. Everything your saying here is from some kind of confused ideology that doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Look, you want to go back to when we didn't have things like progressive income tax, government regulation and welfare? Is that what you're calling socialism? (That isn't, by itself, socialism btw, but I can't be sure what YOU think is socialism because you're not naming specifics.) Well, you can go back to the late 19th century when you had constant boom-and-bust economic cycles, 16-hour workdays for the poor, child labor and all the other things the progressive era existed to eliminate. You can say whatever you want about "human nature", the fact is that progressive politics have made the country a much better place and I for one am grateful for it.

...

Actually Eric I know exactly what I am talking about and am not confused about reality. Fascism is a form of socialism. I don't really see how your boom and bust schedule fits into the scheme of things really. Does the stock market ALWAYS effect main street? I know people would like to think that, but it doesn't. This current boom market at wallstreet seems to be having jack shit effect on main street.
Also, are you saying that socialist are purely responsible for ending 16 hour workdays, child labor and so on? In your world late 1800 and early 1900 unions are pure socialist? Was every politician a "socialist" or a "progressive" in those days? Could it be said that people in power in those days were equally progressive (literally not politically) due to the shit conditions they saw that could be improved? My understanding is that the Socialist Party was not anything of any consequence in the United States during that time - not sure if it even existed. I know that the Communist party existed and had some minor sway in public opinion at that time.
My point being that almost ANYONE during that time had complaints about the plight of workers and the poor. The industrial revolution brought a complex change in humanity that was unknown before that. Before that time, civilization was agrarian. The plight of the poor was looked at much differently. Hell, slavery was looked at differently.
As far as you thinking that is what I want to go back to, that is your opinion. In my mind, I see that socialism has the same problem. I see socialism causing a new poor. Possibly a more comfortable poor but due to globalism and the "new" elite, the top of the top (which sadly own more wealth than all of the poor, middle class, and upper middle class combined) do not have local or national ties like the elite did in the 1970's. If the masses rise against these fat cats in any local region, they just pull up their stakes and make camp in a more friendly environment. Thus you have the United States and its once solid and thoroughly middle class industrial sector now physically located in China and Mexico. Even if the USA became 100% Socialist right now, you would not get that back. And the guys that you want to cough up wealth would just run away to some tax free shelter haven that could give a shit less about the plight of the poor here.
Finally, back to the socialism = fascism. Look, that does not mean that every socialist is secretly a fascist. It just means that the guys that were leaders of fascism started as communist or socialist and then decided that although they believed that income distribution was a good idea, they also thought the idea of universal income distribution was impossible and that they needed to keep their heads of industry as well as their brightest light bulbs satisfied and then cut deals with them to keep them isolated more or less from the distribution as long as they went along with the program. They also "usually" felt that they could do this within a single culture more could be attempted over the entire world. The reason it is called "right wing" is purely for that reason, not because they were like American conservatives. I would LOVE to write a book for you to make you understand that I am not saying this as a cut down or to imply that socialism is evil. Socialism is not evil. It is full of good intentions. Ideally, if it were ever to work correctly I would fully support it. I cannot do so however because I have been around a while now and I have seen and studied individuals, governments, and cultures and how they interact nearly the entire time I have been able to and I see that humanity is truly incapable of such things. And that is why I am convinced that human beings are naturally selfish and when you try to control them and legislate them into heaven, the eventual result is they will only create a hell.

"Also, are you saying that

"Also, are you saying that socialist are purely responsible for ending 16 hour workdays, child labor and so on?"

No, I'm saying progressives did those things and that's what we have in this country, progressivism, not socialism. We don't have socialism in this country. You're not actually reading what I'm saying and I don't know what I'm bothering with saying it for.

...

My apologies. In some sense though - in the American sense wouldn't it be worth saying that the progressive movement was the same as milder forms of Euro-socialism? Note that in one of the sentences I did chain them together which was my way of saying that I consider them both the same means of governance when they are given power. I also said that there is a difference between the political progressive and the general sense at that time that via science man was progressing and that there was no reason for people to suffer any longer. Several high profile Republican politicians were progressive in that way - most notably Teddy Roosevelt. What I mean is they seem to expound the same idea of social welfare but having different ideas how that welfare could be better delivered. And hell, at that time they all seemed to be pretty damn hip to social darwinism - but lets not talk about that.
I seem to remember you once telling me that as a young man you too were tempted by the evil of Libertarian thoughts...What books did you read at the time to put that seed in your mind?

You want to know what books I

You want to know what books I read as a libertarian? Wouldn't it be better to get the books that convinced me NOT to be a libertarian. Read the Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman.

Yes, there were progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. And they were much better leaders than the Republicans we have now, who have been poisoned by Reagan's toxic chalice into believing that it's okay if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

everything you hsay here is

everything you hsay here is just factually incorrect. at some point you need to stop just spinniing your own theories and ideas based on the bits and pieces you pick up on the internet and whatnot and actually read a book, because seriously, the fact that this stuff is all just shash that you're making up to try to win a fight is painfully obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of fascism and socialism in europe. your whole theory is predicated on the notion that the fat cats are actually worht something and are responsible for creating their own wealth. They are not. That's a myth. They are exploiters and they can only exploit what they are allowed to exploit when they are successful at convincing yahoos like you that they actually serve some socially useful function and are not just taking up space.

The reason that violent revolution is so appealing is because frankly they've got you mooks so bamboozled that it would be so much easier to just kill the lot of them and probably the lot of you, their devoted catamites, into the bargain. Of course, that never has worked yet and there are good and obvious reasons why it cant' and why violent revolution, and revolution in general, have to be rejected as transformative goals. But the fact of the matter remains taht if the blight that is the bourgeoisie was wiped off the planet tomorrow, we wouldn't have loseta goddamn thing of real value.

internet knowledge

Jason, I have approximately 20 books about the Third Reich - possibly more. I can tell you without wincing one single bit that Hitler was a dye in the wool socialist. I can also say the same about Mussilini. They only difference is that their system of nationalization of industry was done differently than most communist would feel comfortable with.
Me, I am not completely 100% Libertarian, I am just tired of blowhard politicians claiming that throwing all of the money I have given (and everyone else) to them is a good thing. We are too centralized and there is no longer any real ability for oversight in dealing with corrupt use of funds and just plain retarded use of funds.
I feel that society (American in this case) would be vastly more functional if our Federal portion would butt out of many issues and problems that people have. I see the things you write and I see a man that wants to fix a broken system with the same tools that people have been using for the last 40 years. You say we need to try harder and put more time into it. I say, lay the fucking tools down and see if things don't start self organizing.

There is no need for violent revolution, I certainly don't want that. At this point, it would only make a struggling system react with more control methods. More prisons. More people in jail. More human misery. What I would like to see though is a system that stops being completely in love with LAW. How many fucking laws do we need? What is the end goal? To make life so miserable that jail or government handouts are more reasonable than actually working and owning property?

I have kept you two in mind over the years because I think you are both decent human beings (however I am not sure what the purpose of the name calling is at this point - I am a bit too old to be phased by it) and I think you both have brilliant observations. But I do think that you are a bit too far into circling the wagon of certain political camps. Sure, you want to win - who doesn't? But the cost is getting too heavy now. The ideas are too expensive for humanity - as a whole - to pay for. The system is collapsing and whether you like it or not, in my mind, it is a system that you protect for some reason.

see, this is why what you're

see, this is why what you're saying is ignorant, tim, you equate socialism with nationalization and nationalism, and while it is certainly true that one proposed method of enacting a socialist economy is through a planned economy, it's not the case that a planned economy is socialist. Saying that hitler and mussolini were socialists because the plans of Naziism and Fascism required strong central nationalist leadership and the central planning of a great deal of industry (although not all, plenty of private companies were allowed to grow and thrive in the third reich) just betrays the fact that ultimately you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

...

I sincerely do think that the United States has slowly transformed into a socialist country. At this stage it seems to be a quasi fascist thing. No, not like Hitler and Mussilini, but somewhat like what Mussilini would have hoped for I think(had Hitler not gummed the whole thing up). It is socialist government policy working hand in hand with corporate backing. I am aware that the socialist game plan is to make a level playing field in wages and healthcare and so on - and it has and IS attempting to do just that. It is weird to me to think for a moment that EVERY modern Euro socialist country I went to that I am supposed to pretend that the wealth inequality did not exist when I saw it practically everywhere I went.
The problem is (to me at least) is that if humanity wasn't comprised of millions of individual natures that in the end are self centered creatures, then I would say - fuck yeah, balls on the table for socialism! But the problem is that individuals are crafty and will find means to make that supposed level playing field give them more than the other guy, and the other family. And over time the more that other people see that the guys who "don't play ball" are actually getting ahead the less they will care about the system that is making things "fair". It is why every centralized socialist endeavor fails in some sense. There are guys that you think are 100% allied to it and when the eyes aren't on them they game the fucking system like the system was chump. And really, when you centralize, you get Byzantine. And when you Byzantine, you get corruption. It is human nature. It will always be that way until humans can be literally programmed.

...

Just to make a point here, what if the government runs out of money? where are the poor then? It leads me to believe that the main separation here is your belief in a government that will always have the means to have a real value. History has shown that many times governments can become incapable of that. That is one thing that has always confounded me my entire life. All of the "rebels" and "alternative" people I have known my entire life have this weird trust in that. I suppose the reason is that it is played out over such a long time that it is only every so few generations that have to suffer through it.
I am not sure if this is the generation that will, but with nearly every western state - socialist or not in your definition - taxing more and more and having less and less in their coffers, I'd say the signs are there. Maybe it's true that the US is the exception due to our oddball federal banking system? I am not sure. I wish I had the ability to create value out of thin air though. It would be nice. I am sure Bernake freaks on this ability quite a bit.

Off subject Eric and Jason... I think Obama is just about as progressive as it gets. At least that seemed to be their promise. What is with this:

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/03/05/eric-holder-responds-claims-military-can-assassinate-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil/

Why aren't you or any "lefto" pal I have pissed about that? Where are your opinions on that bullshit? I challenge you to defend or rebuke Mr. Holder and his boss.

"Just to make a point here,

"Just to make a point here, what if the government runs out of money? where are the poor then?"

Explain to me how a government that can incur near limitless debt is capable of running out of money.

Also explain to me how the government is more prone to run out of money than private corporations who would be responsible for the poor if the government wasn't doing it, and who have repeatedly needed bailouts from the government.

"Explain to me how a

"Explain to me how a government that can incur near limitless debt is capable of running out of money"

Eric, you are a pretty smart guy. I will just allow history to unfold itself to let you see just how that can happen. However, since you are a devout socialist (progressive, whatever), you will probably see things such as wealth confiscation by any government as a good thing instead of theft.

When the government finally decides to tell banks that they are going to take what they need to balance their books (again) and there is a run on the banks that basically drowns the upper/upper middle/middle class but leaves that 1 percent high and dry you will probably defend it as a necessary action to keep the poor fed. And sure, that is all well and good. But that is what got this government and nearly all other "western" democracies in this mess in the first place. Promising to be everything for everyone is a really hard promise to keep - and it can be kept - even when it is no longer feasible - by belief. But when the day comes, that day where reality overwhelms belief - as it did just yesterday for anyone living in Cyprus, you may finally understand that Krugman misled you.

god youre not just a

god youre not just a misinfomred troll, you're also an idiot. The left was up in arms about it. It was all over the place in the left. The left has been pissed off about drone warfare for YEARS now, and the right has only just discovered it because Rand Paul decided to use it as a way to grandstand.

Not that there was a good reason for all the new drone panic, though, because obviously there are limited circumstances where a military action on American soil would be legal, and in those circumstances it would not matter whether the person causing the military threat was a citizen or not. The porblem wth drones, the only problem with drones, is that a bunch of them are being operated in a military capacity by the CIA without congressional oversight. That's unconstitutional bullshit. But as for the rest of it, I really doubt that brown kids in Somalia or Yemen or Pakistan care one way or another if the pilot of the airplane blowing them up is riding inside the airplane or not.

...

Prove to me that the left was all over this. I think the ONLY left wing media outlet I saw that gave any attention was Mother Jones. I am gulping down the insults as well - keep em coming I guess.

this is a rambling incoherent

this is a rambling incoherent bit of nonsense that is apparently strung together out of constitutional law jargon words that you've picked up from reading wikipedia articles but don't really understand. The constitution doesn't give the government "enumerated rights." The enumerated rights are those rights that are specifically listed in the constitution. Free speech, keep and bear arms, surety against unlawful searches and seizures, those are enumerated rights. They are contrasted to unenumerated rights which are rights that we have but which are protected by the constitution anyway through it's guarantees of things like "liberty" and "equal protection" and variously defined "privileges and/or immunities."

What you are talking about is the "enumerated powers" of the federal government, which is a totally different issue. But not surprisingly you're completely wrong about that too, because it absolutely is within the enumerated powers of the federal government to provide domestic aid for poverty. It's the same power that allows disaster relief funds, the construction of major federal infrastructure projects, and all manner of other things, because congress found it is important for "domestic security" or that it was "necessary and proper" to do so in order to carry out their duty to uphold the constitution including the mandate of "securing the blessings of liberty"and "providing for common defense" among other things The arguments range pretty widely.

but that's neither here nor there, really, because it's clear that your interest in this is not that you have some deep and abiding respect for constitutional governance. if you had you'd probably have at least bothered to read the thing and know what the powers of the federal government are. No, you just don't like paying taxes and think that you deserve to keep all the money you make, and you have no responsibility to other people that should be forced on you. Which, frankly, is precisely the reason you dicks need to be made to pay your share, because otherwise you wouldn't.

...

You may also think in the terms of what was once considered "states rights" was transformed by the civil war. I think that is a big hurdle for anyone wanting to completely transform the Federal system we currently have. I think at some point in the future that may cause a second civil war of some sort. I think that is low on the totem pole of predictions though. My real thinking is that in the near future what you and Eric advocate will win the day due to the fact that your way is what is currently taught in almost every public school and university. What should happen - even if there is an economic collapse - is that there will be a public outcry for more protection from the government - even though the source of the problem is the government. I would say that most Americans are too "civilized" at this point to go without what they have been taught they are owed.
Then after 10 to 20 years of this, a younger generation will see that all of these promises are not real and there will be a complete reversal of political thought. As the Socialist won America in 1968 - the more Libertarian set will win at this time.

Personally, I will exist well in either system because I am smart enough to do so. In both systems there will be losers and are losers whether that is apparent to anyone who is a "believer" or not. Me, I will admit that I personally prefer a Libertarian system because it would more than likely benefit me much more than the current system - or the dream system of enlightened communism Jason dreams about ever would.

...

Another thought just struck me. Which political system is morally superior and why? And not just in theoretical realms, but in real life examples. For instance, one might state that the socialist system in Sweden is superior to other socialist systems. Why is that? Does that make socialism unfair in that some cultures can do well under its command and others flounder?What are they doing different than say Portugal or Spain? China is emerging due to its so called embrace of capitalism. Yet, its government is still a functional communist government. Why are they any better than Cuba or certain ex-soviet states? And at last, what example do we have for a Libertarian society? Are there any examples at all? In socialist and communist countries the talented middle class and rural land owners seem to "suffer" the most. In a Libertarian society it seems that only the poor would suffer if followed to its end. Why is supporting one class more moral than supporting the other? In America we had an immense socialist experiment called the "war on poverty". Trillions thrown at lower class inner cities and yet not too much to show for it other than hollowed out inner cities. Why? I believe the war on poverty was not morally bancrupt - but it did not work. I think we are nearing a time where most people are no longer wondering what is and isn't moral as opposed to what will work?

*by suffer I mean that they are no longer able to profit as well from their labor due to high taxation (except in hardline Soviet countries where they were murdered by the millions). Do they starve? It doesn't seem so at this point - but of course with the debts the western world has at this point to bring a utopia of sorts to us - they may bring us the exact opposite. Look to Greece for a micro-view on that.

...

Finally, in all different combinations it always seems that (except in violent revolution) that the elite are the only that do not suffer. Am I right? Am I wrong? What say you?

It is possible to work

It is possible to work towards a more equitable society and we should do so because it's better for everyone.

you're not just wrong, you're

you're not just wrong, you're also obnoxious.

...

You have always resorted to name calling whenever you can Jason. It's really sad.

only when dealing with trolls

only when dealing with trolls like you, Tim.

Just because a government

Just because a government says its socialist or communist or democractic, that doesn't mean it is any of those things. This is pretty basic dude. The PRC has never been communist and has only ever managed to function because it adopted a form of state capitalism similar to stalinism.

Yes, Richard Nixon was such a

Yes, Richard Nixon was such a socialist.

Tim, I doubt you actually give a damn, but when you just talk out of your ass like this, you make yourself look stupider than you really are. The civil war wasn't about states rights, it was about slavery. America has bits and pieces of socialist programs, but a socialist economy requires worker control of the means of production. We have no such thing in the united states and the growing wealth inequality is a direct result of the failure to control for the excesses of capitalism in any other way either. there is a difference between "protection from the government" and your idiotic red herring of the nanny state and a simple recognition that people can act in concert to achieve a better social order than the one we have. That's "THE GOVERNMENT" and yr lame ass reagan era cold war binary world where the american ideal is realized anarcho-capitalism in the minimal control of enlightened leaders who know just enough not to do anything is tired and boring and I'm sick of hearing about it.

don't put words in my mouth

don't put words in my mouth you insufferable piece of shit.

WHA?

..

i have not now nor have i

i have not now nor have i ever advocated communism, enlightened or otherwise. communism could never work in practice and is best understood as an thought experiment postulated to show a moral principle about the nature of economic equality. I'm an advocate of democratic market socialism wherein the workers control the means of production and public goods are managed democratically by the government in trust for everyone equally. It might as well be classical liberalism, what I believe in is so goddamn close to liberte egalite fraternite. The flaw in libertarianism is that it forgets about the other two values central to american style civic republicanism, which is very much a workable system that can function perfectly well if everyone is an informed participant in it.

Government just might not be the answer

I think the fallacy of your argument is in assuming that government is the or the only answer to the world's ills. I think many libertarians believe in charity but they don't accept the idea that government should be the entity that is in charge of it. Thus, you don't have to be morally bankrupt to be a libertarian, you just have to get past the idea that government is supreme.