>>16
Because letting the poor be poor and letting the hungry starve is in essence, unethical.
There, I just poised a moral counterpoint to your infallible theory, suck more cocks.
Libertarianism is so fucking air-tight because it has never been implemented in reality, because it is incongruent with human beings. A political system that doesn't work with human beings and their psychological tendencies should really be ignored in favor of one that works, IE a mixed economy.
Libertarians are usually the white college-age male who likes to think they've got it all fucking figured out, who often have been raised in a upper middle class family with every advantage and privilege available to them. Having little ethical grounding, they will seldom acknowledge how despite their "horrible, oppressive society of freeloading and government bureaucracy", they live in the freest, most luxurious, and nice country on earth. Rather than bitch and moan about how "bad" we've got it, why not devote our energies to working harder, developing the sciences, and helping other human beings.
Last I checked, in America, we have millionaires and billionaires. I don't think the system needs to be pushed in a pro-business direction, or that it even needs to be pushed at all.
The vast majority of libertarians support libertarianism because they have little vision or something worthwhile to devote their time to, since they already occupy the upper echelons of society, it makes more sense for them to justify their position and increase their wealth by curbing government influence.
The same could be said of poor people supporting socialism, but poor people get sympathy easier than rich people, so go cry more.