true and well said, though a bit mean.
on the assumption that it's fine to be a libertarian when you're 17 and only objectionable if you don't outgrow it in your 20s, i'll actually answer atlas's questions in the formal terms that could possibly be persuasive to him. i'll choose to suppose that he'll learn the contextual nuance through experience eventually.
I'm not a libertarian. Try political nihilist.
(1) if you oppose state action because of a distaste for 'violence', you ignore even a hint of any consequentialist ethic in dwelling on the state's use of force to impose law rather than on its reduction of violence in imposing law. you also ignore the negative effects of inaction. e.g., you would never kill someone, but you'd have to conclude that it's okay to let them die (rather than, say, impose a small automated tax) of 'violent' forces like illness or starvation. very few people on reflection are willing to admit that they care nothing about the consequences of their moral choices and, accordingly, bar consequentialism entirely from their ethics.
It's impossible not to dwell on the state's use of force because the entire planet is under coercive rule. One should not have to resort to a desert island under your absurd social contract theory. One should be able to interact with other persons with no previous arrangement unless it was one they explicitly agreed to. Not only is a social contract invalid, it serves no utilitarian purpose other than possibly to serve the parasites that benefit from the current status-quo. Which brings up the question is that could a society without our current set of order function better or be on par? That has yet to be determined; however, we remain with a set of order that leaves a lot to be desired.
In addition, to your argument about a lack of order allowing many to starve and die of illness: It simply holds no water. The fact you argue that the labor of many should be enslaved (taxes) to care for the 'less fortunate', only demonstrates a certain belief that humans cannot naturally gain value from voluntarily caring for its fellow man. This is easily destroyed by the fact of the existence of effective charities and it can be further argued that these charities would be a lot more effective if they wouldn't have to compete with government monopolies on force and the ineffective systems of welfare it supports.
Simply put, there is little ground supporting the current status-quo over trying new regimes.
(2) markets are imperfect because (a) the starting position for everyone is not the same, (b) humans are not fully rational, (c) humans face informational asymmetries and other transaction costs in bargaining, (d) much fraud and private coercion goes undetected, including the sort that leads to monopoly and oligopoly, which in turn affects trade.
The starting positions for people will never be the same and I have yet to see a solid argument proving that there is something wrong with this. In fact, 'poverty-stricken' nations tend to be the most well-off in terms of happiness. Citations can be provided upon request. Also, of course humans are not fully rational, so why in the name of all that is rational would you want to put a few humans in the charge of the regime of life and our affairs? In addition, what makes you think a central regime can detect more fraud than through voluntary means? Won't a central regime with a monopoly on force would simply act more in its best-interest and encourage more fraud?
This holds absolutely no water.
(3) advocating for a libertarian endpoint makes the same mistake of a greedy algorithm: even if you assume that no government is better than what we have, that doesn't mean that monotonically reducing government (by any measure) is superior. that requires a separate argument that is rarely if ever offered, because it's (surprise!) context-dependent and requires nuance and sensitivity.
Of course but the amount of government control, it's techniques and much of its variables have been tried with absolute failure, starvation and holocaust. Really trying anything else would be better than trying the same shit again.
(4) most of the criticisms of government 'coercion' are misplaced because they depend on voluntary action. don't like taxes? nobody's 'forcing' you to earn money, and you can move to a regime you prefer. don't like 'fiat currency' because it inflates? then don't hold it long-term. don't like banks because of their relationship to central bankers? nobody says you have to use them; credit unions in the united states often charge no fees and pay higher rates anyway.
Invalid argument. Monopolies on force disrupt the ability for voluntary services to thrive for they would only threaten the enabled bodies. Also, we are forced to earn money and sustain ourselves by our very right to life. You are indirectly implying the right to live is negotiable. That the right for an individual to sustain himself can be somehow compromised.
(5) there are collective-action problems in many large-scale endeavors, and these relate in complex ways to pecuniary and nonpecuniary externalities. our choices affect others in many ways, not all of which are efficient. good papers on this topic are 'the tyranny of small decisions' and, actually, any good legal textbook on an economics-rich subject like contract or tort. a simple nontechnical example are the environmental costs of industrial activity, but libertarians often have a viscerally negative reaction to that point.
We all affect each other. So, somehow, in your arrogance that it's best we elect a powerful few to somehow effectively manage it all? There is no point here.
if you're serious about reflecting on your own beliefs, atlas, and aren't just interesting in thumping your chest and repeating the same truisms, i am happy to provide reading materials at any level of sophistication you would prefer.
You're an arrogant, pedantic, hypocritical individual.