The basic premise of their philosophy is that the government does a poor job of growing and distributing food; creating and enforcing law is not an easier task than growing potatoes, therefore, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume that the government would do a great job at that. And indeed if you look at modern society, the most glaring examples of inequality are in policing, the justice system, and in k-12 education, all of which are government-controlled.
Whatever aggregate enforces law is, ipso facto, the State.
Perhaps; but I don't often see it recognized in Libertarian discourse and writings. This is possibly a failing on my part on reading the right kind of libertarian things.
It's hard to write something generic about an entire ideology since it's always comprised of different views and priorities; and no matter what you write it'll do an injustice to some views. I've added the word "often" to emphasize this a bit.
most of libertarianism is trying to cope with this core flaw, not living that glorious individualist life.
liberty as one of many (sometimes contradictory) values (and the academic lines of inquiry therein) is fine. a whole ideology based on the supremacy of that one value is simply unworkable. we're social creatures, not just a collection of coincident individuals.
Libertarians believe in collective reason over centralized authority.
Here's a good run down.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-li...
I can’t imagine a Libertarian worldview that isn’t aware of the fact that actions that impinge of the rights and freedoms of others need to be limited, and enforcing those laws are one of the few genuine responsibilities of the government. To pretend otherwise is a total straw man.
I think you would get a lot out of it.
The issue is that someone has to make these decisions and libertarians don't think the government is the group to do it.
The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.
Government is the big hammer and when you start using government casually instead of letting people decide at their own direction that's when you start running into massive problems. Because the government could give you what you want one day but then with that same power take away everything the next.