You assume that all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, Richard. They aren't. I am not.

I believe that its the governments job to provide very strong courts for people to ensure proper recourse should their rights be violated - against corporations, private people, social liberties, ect. I also believe the government shouldn't have a large part in social agendas - to promote specific lifestyles (socially liberal or maybe moderate, depending on how you look at it).

I do believe a government should exist. Just not a government that takes 30-40% of people's income, and is very irresponsible for it. Libertarianism is not perfect as Sqrl said, nor is capitalism. However, given what I've experienced as a government worker (and any friend I have that works for Uncle Sam), I can definitively say that government workers are not the answer to the problem.

I consider libertarians pragmatic anarcho-capitalists.  You also have the socialistic version of anarchy, which ends up not believing even in money.

I will still stand by what I wrote above.  It is libertarians believe that people should be able to fail in life.  If they do negotiate contracts and things go bad for them, and the end result is them dying as a result, then so be it.  It goes with the territory.  And if you privatize everything, then you end with a place where people without property could end up on the property of others.  And, if they have no place to go, they are considered tresspassing.  Because individuals who own property have a right to not have their property violated, they have a right to shoot people on their property for tresspassing.  After all, if you privatize everything, there is nowhere else they go.  This executing of others also helps to clear up the poverty issue fine, and get rid of losers. 

You can then try to argue, "But wait a minute, people have more of a right to their own life, than people do to physical property!"  Really?  Ok, well, consider this instead: What happens then instead of killing people for trespassing we enable people to allow people to camp on their own property, with the provision if the people die to starvation, the owner of the property gets to keep the corpses that remain on their property, and be able to sell the body parts to science or people in need of organs.  Is this more humane?  And what happens then if, in a completely free society, everyone is maximizing profits and people fall through the cracks still, and end up having their lives shortened, due to neglect.  Is that more humane?  Wait, who says being humane even matters, right?  I think Ayn Rand has harsh words about charity and things being "humane".

I can understand that one can say, "Well X isn't perfect" (replace X with Libertarianism in this case).  HOWEVER, if people can bring up examples where running the current system is superior to an alternative, then the proposed alternative has weaknesses that aren't addressed, and on a purely debate level, it will fail to be able to be taken seriously.  I am sorry, but claiming imperfect as a defense isn't effective in an argument, when something also imperfect shows superior results.

Ok, so I will also say this: Libertarianism is very good, IF society collectively does what is needed without government, on its own voluntarily.  Then you are able to have even anarchy as a government form.

@bold,

Well that is actually a fairly easy question to address.  It also highlights an aspect of capitalism that even it's supporters don't always seem to fully grasp.

Put simply wealth is NOT the point of capitalism, prosperity is.

"OK but what does that actually mean" is probably what you're thinking.  And the answer is that the point of capitalism is not just to make smart people rich.  The fundamental point of capitalism, like any economic system is to promote the advancement of the society's standards of living.

Capitalism promotes this by telling people that if they take the risk of believing in their ideas and they work hard to succeed they will be rewarded with wealth.  But looking at just this aspect of capitalism is sort of like following a single electron flowing down a wire as a generator powers a city...you're not seeing the big picture.  The wealth gained by one individual is ultimately only used for two things...1) to buy items that improve that person's standard of living thus rewarding someone else, or 2) Taking another risk to improve standards of living for everyone.  Because ultimately the important thing is the accumulation of countless iterations of risk and success, which is why even the rewards people receive can eventually only go towards even more risks.  It is this repetition through society that together adds up to a constant forward motion in standards of living.

It is easy to overlook but even the absurdly frequent revisions to an iPhone or a new Dell Laptop, while they may seem insignificant, are vitally important as they are funding the R&D behind miniaturization processes. And the smaller the parts get the more we can fit on a single chip, and the the faster our computers get as a result.  While these benefits of a slightly faster computer, may seem like a nominal advancement to standards of living, the cumulative benefit of those incremental speed increases over time should be obvious.  From a time when only a massive business or a large university would have a room-sized computer, to when lots of folks had work computers but not home computers, to when home PC's were everywhere and only a businessman would have a laptop, to now when both of my 10 year old cousins are on their second laptop as of last X-mas.  It is a relentless march of incremental progress...which may be why so few seem to notice it..it is so incremental.

This process, as should be obvious now, repeats itself across all industries relentlessly.  Of course, from time to time an industries may stagnate and they'll suffer as a result until they either adapt or they die off, while other industries experience a burst of new innovation and thrive as a result.

The bottom line to get from all of thus, at the risk of being a bit repetitive, is that wealth generation is the incentive for prosperity generation, and the point of capitalism is societal prosperity generation, NOT wealth generation.  The difference is that wealth is a measure of an individual's prosperity relative to the rest of their society, while the society's prosperity is an absolute measurement between the the lowest standard of living and the standard of living of say a cave man without a fire. 

This point can be illustrated by the fact that people in America today eat as well or better than did many King's and Emperors throughout history.  While an average American today has average wealth as measured against the society's lowest standard of living, the Kings and Emperors were measuring against a significantly poorer standard of living.  Interestingly in thinking about this example some it occurs to me that by in large we've moved away from the need to improve on our standards of living in the realm of food and have gone to more elaborate creature comforts in the form of electronic gadgets, cars, etc... That in itself speaks to the progress that has been made. But I digress...

Hopefully that answers your question of "what the wealth is to be used for.  Are we to just mindlessly go for the generating even more wealth, or using it to help others?".  As you can see, the process by it's very nature helps others. I could (and do) argue that allowing someone to fail is helping them, but the larger point I'm making is that capitalism helps everyone by improving everyone's standards of living, and I cannot think of anything else you could possibly ask of an economic system. 

Specifically how people spend their money is not dictated by capitalism, capitalism merely ensures them that how they spend it will have consequences to their own standard of living...for better or worse.  And if they choose, as Bill Gates and others have, to give some of their wealth away to charity then that is certainly their choice, but I would say they haven't given it away.  To my view they probably got a great deal of satisfaction out of helping their fellow man.  And in purchasing that satisfaction whilst helping others I'd say an extremely positive capitalistic transaction takes place.  The standard of living for both sides of the transaction improve, albeit one sides gains are material and the other psychological.

It seems your argument is simply that MrStick and I are not allowed to have a nuanced position in Libertarianism.  We have to have your view of anarchist libertarianism or none at all.

Sorry but it doesn't work like that.  Neither of us are in favor of pure anarachy, in fact I'll go out on a limb and bet that MrStick agrees with this video on the Rahn curve as much as I do:

In any case, claiming imperfect is not a defense...it's a statement of reality. Nothing is perfect.  As for something showing superior results, I've yet to see you offer any indications or evidence of such a system to compare to what MrStickball and I are talking about (I doubt we agree 100%, but we seem close enough on the points we've covered thus far). Instead you've offerred this insane form of anarachist libertarianism that neither of us endorse, support, or in any way have espoused here.

And Sqrl is correct.

My problem is that government is too large, and far-encompasing, and it causes problems in relation to the tax dollars spent on various services.

For example, education. Currently, 90% of youths are educated via public schooling means. Costs are up, well over inflation, while results are stagnant, or declining. We've also dropped in relative scores against other countries.

An anarcho-capitalist would argue that everyone should be for themselves. I would argue that the system needs vouchers which allow youths to get free education at the school of their choice - public or private. Thats what I want, the liberty to choose.

You can argue that countries cannot exist without large, pervasive governments, but I think Hong Kong and South Korea disagree with you. Both are growing despite an absence of massive government involvement in their economies.

Libertarianism is not perfect. It does require responsibility from the populace, but I believe that if incorporated, would be far better than what we have now. For example, removal of medicare and social security costs and benefits for those 10 years away from retirement. The amount of monies saved for the public by cancelling those 2 systems would be immense...I could invest 5% of my earnings into an IRA to yield the same results as 8.5% via social security. That 3.5% saved  could allow me to invest in buying things (helping the economy) or I could give it to people and help reduce depedency on welfare.

My main point regarding Libertarianism is that, it is insufficient to effectively provide for a better society, and given the nature of human beings to be subject to vices and sheer stupidity, that if it isn't tempered with other values, you aren't going to have much of a society.  The issues is for society to do more on its own, without government involvement, or you can't have Libertarianism in any form.

You can also talk about curves maximizing wealth or "prosperity", but when other things in society get neglected, because of the drive for materialism, and corporations maximizing profits every second, at the expense of everything else, a society can suffer as a whole.

Also, you can just manipulate tax rates and spending, and expect it to manage alone.  In a nation with uneducated people, and individuals with severe health issues and short life expectencies, don't expect that changing tax rates will fix anything.  In a society like Inner City America, deck out with bling shops, and teen pregnancy and STDs running rampant, along with crime, don't expect that you can just cut tax rates and having things go well.  No amount of money is going to fit these things.  And people handling freedom badly isn't addressed by giving more freedom to them.  A society can drive itself off a cliff, and saying freedom is the answer, or less government, won't fix it.

Take again the case of inner city areas, with high crime.  In these cases, would less government spending or more for law enforcement, be an answer?  Would the crime suddenly stop because there is now an optimal tax rate?  Or is it that you need there to be a level of security before things remain sustainable and you can have business?

And then, let's say there case, as has been demonstrated, where wealth accumulation happens exponentially worse as time goes on, as a nation drives itself into a third-world status.  When the difference between the rich and poor grows so large, that you don't have much of a middle class, how is that society going to be able to even promise people a chance they will be able to make it?

In regards to giving people money now to help them reduce their dependence on welfare, how much do you actually give at this time?   If you aren't doing it now, what makes you think you would give it to others when you have more of it?

I agree, but subsidizing bad behavior (which is what the government currently does) won't fix those problems, either.

So, if a byproduct of not funding that is people dying, are you in favor of this?  These deaths can come from people who don't get money going off to increase crime that kills others, or end up dying through neglect and homelessness.

Like, how about the case of unemployment?  I am doing side project stuff, because I don't have money coming in (see the CADERS) website.  I used to get extended unemployment money.  Well, they money is gone, and I am still without paid employment.  I have a Masters in Information Systems and haven't worked in multiple years.  MAYBE I get lucky to land part-time office cleaning work for $10/hr or so.  What part of bad behavior is the government subsidizing here when they pay me unemployment money?

I give about 20-30% of my income to the poor and needy. I also contribute a decent bit of time to food pantries, homeless shelters, and the like as well.

How much do you contribute?