Though I consider myself mostly libertarian in philosophy, there are problems with their philosophy which fundamentally cannot be fixed.
Ultimately, the libertarian philosophy can be summarized as "as long as you don't do harm to others without their consent, you can do whatever you want." However, the phrase "do harm to others without consent" is vague and effectively impossible to truly accomplish.
For example, if I stand nearby someone's property, someone could argue that I am affecting their property because light-waves bounce off me and go into their property. What if the owner doesn't consent to my light-waves going into their property? In a very minimal way, I might be hurting them.
Any reasonable person would obviously say that this example is ridiculous, but it demonstrates that all actions have consequences, and those consequences could affect other people. We cannot reasonably ask for consent for everything we do. This is where society, through a government, steps in to decide what people can and can't do without getting consent. Generally, government should err on the side of liberty without consent under the assumption that people can solve their own disputes, but it needs to recognize areas where use of force is justified to make sure people don't gravely violate each other's rights.
Though I consider myself mostly libertarian in philosophy, there are problems with their philosophy which fundamentally cannot be fixed.
Ultimately, the libertarian philosophy can be summarized as "as long as you don't do harm to others without their consent, you can do whatever you want." However, the phrase "do harm to others without consent" is vague and effectively impossible to truly accomplish.
For example, if I stand nearby someone's property, someone could argue that I am affecting their property because light-waves bounce off me and go into their property. What if the owner doesn't consent to my light-waves going into their property? In a very minimal way, I might be hurting them.
Any reasonable person would obviously say that this example is ridiculous, but it demonstrates that all actions have consequences, and those consequences could affect other people. We cannot reasonably ask for consent for everything we do. This is where society, through a government, steps in to decide what people can and can't do without getting consent. Generally, government should err on the side of liberty without consent under the assumption that people can solve their own disputes, but it needs to recognize areas where use of force is justified to make sure people don't gravely violate each other's rights.