I am singularly unimpressed by libertarian arguments that end in "so they can just sue". They exist in some fantasy world of perpetual lawyers. They put the weaker party (the wife and children) at a tremendous disadvantage vis a vis the stronger financial resources of the male former breadwinner. In a secular world of mobile wealth and mobile people society has no power, absent the power of the state, to fulfil its very real societal interest in seeing to it that women and children are looked after and that the weaker party (even those who don't have the money to sue) is not simply walked over.
In a libertarian world justice is only for those who can afford the best lawyers. A good society has to be better than that.
You also don't understand what libertarianism holds. It holds that the purpose of govm't is to protect rights. It is not the duty of govm't to refrain from doing that to abandon that job to the individual.
The libertarian understanding of this matter is given in #31.
Who let the DUmpster spill into here?
This is the great advantage of mobile wealth and mobile people -- it breaks up local talibans.
As much as I like libertarian ideas, the people who most consistantly prove that mankind lacks sufficient moral sense to live by them are Libertarians themselves.
Freedom must be supported by responsibility and morality, or it is not viable. Many liberatians worship freedom at the expense of the other two, which is dangerous and irresponsible.