No.
However, go on Enzyme. Tell us why you hate them. I enjoy your philosophical diatribes.
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 9:27, 1 reply)

OK - here's the potted version.
(1) They tend to appeal to some notion of rights (cf Robert Nozick), but never say what grounds those rights.
(2) The understanding of freedom is metaphysically implausible: they seem to think that moral character can be separated from the context in which it's found - that they'd be somehow unaffected if they lived in an entirely different world.
(3) Relatedly, they seem to assume that their own talents and attributes come from nowhere.
(4) They mistakenly think that, if people were left to themselves, everyone would be better off. In reality, in that kind of world, those with an initial privilege would be able to capitalise on that, and the worst off would get worse off.
(5) They have a strange idea that no restriction on personal licence is acceptable, irrespective of the impact that that licence has on others. For example, I've heard libertarians seriously complaining that it's awful how they aren't allowed to smoke in pubs. I pointed out that, as a barman, it's much preferable: noone is stopping them smoking - they're just unable to give me cancer and make my clothes smell while they do so. Response: either blank looks, or a strange anger that I had the temerity to think that I had any claim bankable against them.
(6) Relatedly, they have no concept of public costs, and the idea that they might have a moral responsibility to bear the public costs of their actions. So, again: I've heard libertarians claim that it's unacceptable that there should be a minimum price on alcohol because they have a right to cheap alcohol. Point out the cost of this in terms of burden to the NHS, policing, lost work days, and so on, and they're utterly dumbfounded. They genuinely have no idea what you mean - either that, or they accuse you of being anti-fun. (Seriously. I've been told with a straight face that minimum alcohol pricing, and - for that matter - public health campaigns about diet are motivated not by a desire to increase welfare, but because government officials do not like fun.)
(7) Libertarians have no concept of intergenerational justice. I recently got into an argument with someone who thought that all planning and environmental regulations should be abolished, because they (allegedly) slow economic growth. He had no idea that there might be reasons for them.
(8) I could go on...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 9:52, closed)

And the way they pronounce a hard 'k' like a German 'ch'.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 9:59, closed)

Yarp.
Undoubtedly a blinkered view. Those I know who espouse it are invariably well-adjusted and (to a degree) privileged sorts. As you point out, they're pretty much convinced that as they remain relatively unscathed by their own licentious behaviour, it has no wider ramifications and should therefore be unfettered.

Tish and fipsy.

And yet, the Freeman of the Land movement grows daily.
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 10:00, closed)

Don't get me started on them.
Hell, they even give libertarians a bad name. The libertarians I know may have a stupid understanding of social interactions, but at least they generally don't believe in fictional laws and legal concepts.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 10:03, closed)

I don't know where you find these limp-wristed, wannabe anarchists,
but maybe you should move in different social circles?

I can see why you hate them, though.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 10:04, closed)

Good summary.
I might nick it next time I'm arguing against the brick wall of Austrian School Economics on teh interwebz, if that's ok with you?
( shinyshinyscalp less a man, more a way of life, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 15:24, closed)

Go for it...
I'm sure you could do better, though.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 1 Apr 2011, 19:39, closed)