[DividesByZero]

I can understand how one might come to be a libertarian: through disillusionment with the government of the day, one comes to believe government itself is the problem rather than its particular form. The problem at the core of libertarianism is the slavish belief that the 'free market' is somehow guaranteed to produce results beneficial to society as a whole, or in the more sociopathic cases (which I suspect are the majority), benefit for themselves at the expense of others in a way that government cannot.

This argument neglects the fact that there does not exist any such beast as the 'free market' except in the platonic form - real transcational characteristics of goods and services, as well as the characteristics of the medium of exchange, always lead to a particular form of market emerging. Specifically, because of the fact that capital compounds capital - it is in the very nature of unregulated markets to concentrate resources in the hands of a few.

Why should we therefore be satisfied with 'free' markets that lead to enormous concentrations of resources in the hands of small numbers of individuals, far skewed away from the distributions of human ability according to measures of intelligence, aptitude or what have you? A market is a physical system to be engineered to produce the social outcome of most benefit. How you decide what is of 'most benefit' has some contention, but I'm pretty sure concentrating resources created by a majority in the hands of a minority is not it.