[LowCountryJoe]

The problem with libertarianism is that it has no enforcement mechanism...

You have libertarianism confused with anarchy; you are incorrect?

Libertarianism assumes that an immoral population can remain free...

No! It assumes that groups of people (populations) only* become immoral when they have power over others. You do not know what you are arguing.
*There are some exceptions with those that are predisposed to perversion and craziness at birth, through genetics, or what-have-you.

[puroresu]

I wrote: The problem with libertarianism is that it has no enforcement mechanism...

You replied: You have libertarianism confused with anarchy; you are incorrect?

I then wrote: Libertarianism assumes that an immoral population can remain free...

You then replied: No! It assumes that groups of people (populations) only* become immoral when they have power over others.

I'll leave it to you to figure out the amazing contradictions in your arguments. If libertarianism has an enforcement mechanism, then it must have some way for power to be exerted over others.

You do not know what you are arguing.

I think I've got a pretty good grasp of the subject and have given some solid examples of how social liberalism leads to nanny statism. Got any examples of it leading to the opposite (i.e., lower taxes, decentralization, smaller government)?