Short answer: No. They are not wrong.
I'm all about collaboration and building bridges. I see lots of problems with society but they break into two camps:
1) Social problems -- some people behave irresponsibly (they don't work, they don't care for their children, they take drugs, etc.)
2) Economic problems -- government taxes people, spends money on irresponsible people, and creates an environment where personal responsibility and hard work don't lead to success as much as they should.
I think the second problem should be attacked first. Limit the government charity. Cut the taxes. Abandon irresponsible people. Sink or swin: personal responsibility should be mandatory.
Once government is limited in that way (no longer a crutch) then I am all in favor of lifting rules on raising children, taking drugs, etc. Maybe it's OK if "anything goes" -- so long as the person making those decisions is fully responsible for the outcomes.
But, in general, I don't see a lot of Libertarians trying to limit government so much on the economic side of things. It's mostly: legalize drugs, open the borders, easy abortion, legal prostitution. Let's do the fun stuff first.
And THEN we'll try to take away the free money and social goodies which allow people to behave in any way they like.
I say that's backwards. It won't work. Libertines will just never be willing to move on ther Phase 2 and get rid of the EBT cards, the subsidized housing, and the government healthcare and retirement accounts.
I want to limit government quite drastically. But the order in which that is done is very important. And starting with the fun stuff is the wrong approach.
I agree. Private-pay or private charity, on everything from medical care to education to food to housing.
“But, in general, I don’t see a lot of Libertarians trying to limit government so much on the economic side of things. It’s mostly: legalize drugs, open the borders, easy abortion, legal prostitution. Let’s do the fun stuff first.”
The reason you see those things is because that’s where libertarianism departs from conservatism. Reason, The Cato Institute, Lew Rockwell, etc... Check them out. To put it mildly, there is no lack of materials concerning economic matters. Lots about gun control, too.
But, in general, I don't see a lot of Libertarians trying to limit government so much on the economic side of things. It's mostly: legalize drugs, open the borders, easy abortion, legal prostitution. Let's do the fun stuff first.
And THEN we'll try to take away the free money and social goodies which allow people to behave in any way they like.
I say that's backwards. It won't work.
I say we do them both* - using one as a justification not to do the other is not a liberty-respecting position.
(*Except "open the borders, easy abortion" - they have nothing to do with true liberty and are in fact antithetical to it.)