The problem I have with many Libertarians is not that they value liberty. It's that they don't value it enough.

One problem:

If you value *money*, you're willing to trade a little over here to get a lot more over there. Not just willing, but eager.

Most academic Libertarians see how this also applies to *liberty* and work it into their accounts. Twitter-Libertarians, not so much.

Trade a higher tax bill if you wind up rich (but not so much that you aren't still rich) in exchange for free education, public infrastructure, & health care if you wind up poor? This is a massive opportunity for a net gain in liberty. Should be a no-brainer for a liberty-lover.

Sure, there are problems lurking. Work motivation, inflation, whatever. But that's not the point. The point is that a true libertarian should be hoping there is a way to make it work, because the net gain in liberty is just so great.

"But that just shows you don't know what liberty is. Liberty is about non-interference."

I think that's an impoverished conception of liberty, but let's work with your definition for a bit.

How much does abject poverty *interfere* with one's ability to pursue one's dreams? How much does inferior education *interfere* with one's ability to compete in the job market? How much does fear of medical bankruptcy interfere with one's ability to get a good night's sleep?

If Libertarianism was mostly about removing unnecessary obstacles to human freedom, I might even adopt the label myself. I don't like unnecessary regulation or people telling me what to do. I also share common ground with "bleeding heart Libertarians" and "geo-Libertarians".

But this version I encounter often on Twitter, seems like little more than a collection of shallow rationalizations for reducing taxes for the wealthy and dismantling all government programs -- even (or especially??) the ones that produce net gains in human freedom.

</soapbox>