Big Ell Libertarians piss me off worse than Christians (worse than Muslims even, and you know how much they piss me off). Theistards have at least the defense that they're either stone-cold stupid and/or have been massively indoctrinated since childhood. Libertards (Libertarian retards) have no such excuse.
Libertarianism rests on absurd hypocrisy. Pacifists notwithstanding, I don't think it's rational to absolutely denounce coercion (you have to defend yourself); Libertarianism denounces, rather, the "initiation" of coercion. However people have been coercing each other since the dawn of recorded history. Denouncing the "initiation" of coercion means just, "Go back until someone else acted coercively, and then justify my own coercion as a defense against that coercion." If (American) Libertarians were serious about the "initiation" of coercion, they'd give their land back to the Indians and move back to Europe.
Any notion of property rights requires the acceptable initiation of coercion. If something is property, then someone has to make that something his property for the first time. I have to, for example, fence off some piece of land to make it my property. But how is that not the "initiation" of coercion? Until I put up the fence, you were free to use that land as you pleased; now I'm forcing you to stay off of it; only I can now use the land as I please.
Libertarians refuse to be obligated to protect my rights, but demand that I protect their property. Fuck you. Defend your own damn property against robbery and theft. If those ten guys over there can overpower you and take your stuff, what business of it is mine? You should have hired more bodyguards. (And if your bodyguards realize they can take your stuff, too bad for you.)
Libertarians tend to be upper-middle-class professionals. What these Libertard upper-middle-class professionals fail to realize is that their status and wealth is protected by un-Libertarian law and custom (i.e. requiring law degrees and bar examinations; why not let the market decide who should be a lawyer?)
The truly wealthy realize they don't need a political philosophy to protect their wealth. Indeed, the very wealthy usually realize their wealth — just like the wealth of most of the middle-class — derives precisely from the non-Libertarian structure of society. Henry Ford couldn't have become rich unless his workers were paid sufficiently above cost to afford to buy his automobiles. Welfare props up the above-cost value of lower-class physical labor, which props up the value of middle-class intellectual labor, which props up the value of upper-class ownership.
Positive feedback dominates a finite free market: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Most of Libertarianism's economic absurdities come from extending the simplifying assumptions of infinity to actual truths about the finite world. Given that the "initiation" of coercion is an inherently incoherent, contradictory concept, in a finite free market, power will accrue not to the most "productive" but to those best able to marshal coercive power: To borrow from Napoleon, "The coercion was initiated by the side with the worst artillery." The last "free market" society was 18th century France, and look how that turned out.
There's nothing wrong with individual liberty and property rights. Both are valuable tools for managing a productive economy which provides happiness and material benefits for everyone, not just the ruthless few. But they are human constructs; they were not written by God Himself into the fabric of the universe.
Libertarianism is nothing more than the infantile, puerile whining of children who demand to keep the toys the other children shared with them.