|
This is similar to the line-in-the-sand arguments about gun control. A gun controller's favourite tactic is to ask if you personally wouldn't mind if someone had a bazooka. If you reply in the negative, the weapon in question is upgraded until you find yourself accepting anyone's right to own a nuclear bomb. At this point the controller can laugh at your crazy ideas, as he or she thinks only an imbecile has no problem with anyone having access to nuclear weaponry. The proper libertarian response all the way through is "No, I don't care who has weapons (or which ones) as long as no-one tells me which ones I can buy or sell." This is one reason why libertarianism is an extremist position in today's society - few people have enough faith in free market incentives to contain WMD proliferation. Indeed, one could argue that such proliferation would increase in a free market world (driving up the cost of security and nullifying some of the proposed benefits of such a world). Back to the point, a case for rightful intervention might also be made for abused children, who are in an equivalent situation as the fat chicks Strawman refers to. That is, dependent and under the physical power of their carer/jailer/abuser. In answer to your question "When should society intervene?", a libertarian can accept no point where society is right to intervene in someone else's relationships. Any retreat on that front would mean admitting that individual rights can be subsumed by collective rights, and is thus impossible.
| 
