No its not a problem. Economic well being is not necessarily personal liberty.
This is what liberty means.
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing
Therefore, if I wanted to move into a development and a stipulation on my contract said I had to keep my property looking groomed to keep property values high and to be considerate of my neighbors, then I have voluntarily entered into an agreement as such. If I purchase property and there is no such stipulation, then it is not violate a contract (fraud), it is not commiting force on someone else, and therefore there is no ground to hold your neighbor accountable.
Again, this is the problem with libertarianism. Define "liberty". You say that my right to throw my fist stops at your face. But my fist is always going to be further away from my perspective, and your face always closer from yours. There is no such thing as objective 'reason'. Or objective 'fairness'. Or 'equality'.
This makes no sense. Either you are forcing me to do something or you are not. There is no 'grey area' as you would like myself to believe. Making physical contact or threating is using force. Asking a neighbor to stop doing something that you do not like is completely another.
And that gets me to the second post, where you say that force is the standard to know if rights are being violated. That tells me you're probably a Rand fan. But, if there's no God, and we need an 'objective' answer to what 'reason' or 'freedom' or 'liberty' means, to whom do we appeal? Rand says that two 'rational' people can't disagree, but we're disagreeing right here. And what Rand doesn't tell you is that this statement--"Two rational people cannot have disagreements"--which she repeats often in her works, is *non-negotiable* to her 'philosophy'. Because if two rational people can honestly disagree, then it's not Objectivism, it's Subjectivism, or better yet Nonsensism.
I haven't read any of Rand's work except Capitalism: The Unknown ideal. Reason is not the discussion at hand, liberty and freedom are, which I've already defined.
So, on the issue of force, if we can't agree on which version of 'liberty' or 'truth' or whatever should prevail, eventually someone is going to have to come in and pick between competing visions of what these ideas mean. And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force. Thus, Rand's entire philosophy relies on arbitrary decisions on what abstract concepts mean, which are then backed up by guns. Because if Objectivism isn't backed up by force, how will it prevail? By appealing to God?
No, you have it backwards. You have to define force first, before you can define liberty. Liberty could easily be said as free from (initial) force. I should have said initial force, as once you violate the rights of others, you have given up your rights in the process. When you are not (initially) forcing people to do anything, you have liberty.
I would invite you to read more Ayn Rand. Especially the parts about her personal life. Her small little intellectual group was called the "Collective", and she ruled it like a tyrant. If she thought one of her minions was insufficiently "rational", i.e. disagreed with her, she "excommunicated" them. In other words, here's the ultimate "rational" libertarian using her version of "force"--exile--to enforce her version of "rationality". I'm sure the losing party in these battles had just as many good points as Rand. It didn't matter. Rand had the power in the group, and she used it to settle disputes arbitrarily.
Cheers, HV