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)?
Apparently you do not recognize that contracts, voluntary associations, and established mediation or prearranged judiciary have a place in a civilized society. If you do not understand these things then I cannot continue to rationally discuss politics with you...you obviously prefer the force of government and the tyranny of the majority. Good luck with that approach in trying to build a better society.