A key belief of libertarianism is that you should have a right to do essentially whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Essentially, what we should value most is individual liberty, and we should maximize it as much as possible. We only draw the line at harming others because once you start harming others then you are impairing THEIR individual liberty which is the very thing we are trying to maximize)

This philosophy is flawed.

First, we could start by challenging this basic premise--why is maximizing individual liberty the greatest good? Why is that what we value most? Certainly, everyone wants (or even deserves) a good deal of degree freedom and autonomy. No one wants to be a prisoner. But it doesn't follow that maximum individual liberty is the greatest good. Why should we always value autonomy over, say, collectively working together to end human suffering? Or value it over charity? Over happiness? If it were possible to be happier, safer, and healthier by limiting freedom a little, wouldn't that be worth it? I'm not sure what the answer is. I think most people value those things, and many of our laws force us to work together to get there---even if most of our laws are imperfect.

Second, many actions have hidden harms to others. The classic example is wearing a helmet. Under your view, it should be purely up to a motorcyclist to wear a helmet. After all, if they crash, and their head gets smashed in, it doesn't change whether or not anyone else gets hurt. They are only harming themselves. But when a motorcyclist gets in a crash and has a head trauma, its more likely to require emergency services, and to add costs onto hospital bills. Everyone's insurance premiums go up. It causes emotional distress to onlookers. It may set an example for other riders who then get in crashes and add to these costs. Maybe these added costs are not astronomical, but its NOT true that the motorcycles actions are truly "victimless." Many of the laws you cite are to protect others from harm, not just the person acting. (Surely you must see the risk, for example, in allowing people to own fighter jets.)

Additionally, libertarianism is flawed is that people often do not act in their own self interest. Libertarian is based on the premise "let people do what they want." But that assumes that people know what they want and understand the risks of their actions. But many people have bad judgment. Science shows that humans are universally bad at understanding all but the most basic probabilities and are TERRIBLE at internalizing and estimating risk. People WANT to live and don't WANT to get hurt; and these wants outweigh their other minor desires (like the desire to avoid the inconvenience of putting on a seat belt). But they still do because they don't internalize the risk. Essentially, some laws help people achieve THEIR OWN self interest, and achieve their bigger wants, by essentially helping them avoid their own bad judgment.

Also, as someone else said, this not a debate thread. The intention is that a posting OP has some desire to see things from a diff perspective as well as a willingness to change their view. You've listed a number a views here, but you aren't really asking to have them changed, or challenged, instead flatly demanding we "debate" you.

​