Either put a cogent article without innuendo to make a point or nothing.
To quote a wise man, "this is not an argument, its a slur".
This is meaningless; you can substitute any other ideology you dislike (socialism, conservatism, anarchism, liberalism, whatever) and it makes just as much sense.
Something like 90% of libertarians I speak with are in favour of social safety nets (guaranteed basic income comes up a lot) and progressive taxation.
Everyone believes in collective effort for the greater good. People just disagree about the best way to achieve this collective effort.
On the second point, that's true. The same or similar outcomes can be achieved with different policies/incentives.
There's nothing at all morally or ethically bankrupt about it. If anything, libertarianism holds higher moral and ethical ground than any other ideology.
Examples of rent seeking that come to my mind are things like obligatory licenses (license owners can charge higher prices because possible competitors are shut out of the market); excessive zoning (property owners extract value because no new property construction is allowed); subsidised production.
What's an example of rent-seeking caused by someone having a pile of capital much bigger than small companies, that does not happen through lobbying for regulation?
> What's an example of rent-seeking caused by someone having a pile of capital much bigger than small companies, that does not happen through lobbying for regulation?
It seems like you mixed the discussion of rent seeking with a separate discussion of the competitive advantage of big companies.
> Rent seeking and hoarding demonstrably harm others.
I don't agree with the other party that libertarians hate rent seeking, though. The most obvious example of rent-seeking is, well, rent - and I've never heard a libertarian speak against landlords.
Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that are mutually-beneficial.
Also, what actions are you prohibited from taking now that you could do under a libertarian system?
Driving a car on the public highway without insurance.
Buying some marijuana to smoke in the privacy of my own home.
Buying scrap metal from a stranger without taking down his ID.
It's mainly (but not exclusively) things that are correlated with wrongdoing, but don't actually harm anyone in and of themselves.
I'm all for punishing people who are doing harm (e.g. in the above cases: pretending to be a competent dentist when you're not, or running into someone's car and not paying them for the damage, or robbing some shops to pay for your marijuana, or stealing copper to sell for scrap), but I don't like punishing innocent people who are doing no harm, merely because they're trying to do something that is also done as a byproduct of harm.
Driving on the public highway with no insurance and no way to financially settle any potential accident is not an innocent person doing no harm. They're externalizing their responsibility onto whoever they collide with.
I know this is an ideological discussion and not a practical one, but my response to that is a lot of laws are in place because the harm the bad actors do when there are no consequences outweighs the potential benefit gained from a lack of regulation.
The lesson here? Libertarians have good ideas about: The war on drugs,
Add this to your list: blowback.
The privatization of everything including the social safety net.
> Have fun enforcing your property rights when the guy with more capital can drain you dry in the private court system
Users of the current court systems are having "fun" too, you know. What's the benchmark here?
Robber Barons, Gilded Age. <--- Read about this era before advocating for libertarian ideas
It's hard to have discussions about the present if you don't understand the past.
The most rapid increase in prosperity in the history of mankind, where millions of people were lifted out of abject poverty. Currently repeating in other countries that embrace free-market capitalism. What's your point?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_famil...
If the rich were interested in self-preservation they'd treat wealth inequality as an existential issue.