Ugh. What's the point.
rumborak
I'm sorry. I actually understand what you mean now - and what I said there just proves your point kinda.
So yes, you have a point when it comes to libertarians coming off as apathetic. For instance, libertarians often say that private charities do a much better job than government in various causes. I would say that's true. But it's another step to take to actually actively donate, and I feel like a fail this requirement - which I even consider to be a moral duty, so I'm not happy with myself. So, I guess at least I deserve coming off as heartless, and I deserve it. But I'm not a people person at all, and I tend to see social problems from either a strict philosophical standpoint (the use of force, etc) or cost-benefit - and I fail to take into account the "human cost" - and yes it will get taken care of better with charity but that depends on charitable people, and many libertarians do not classify as charitable people.
The worst part of that is Objectivists. They do not hold to the moral principle that we are our brother's keeper. So they definitely cast a negative light on libertarianism in a way, and I actually don't think too highly of Ayn Rand as a person.
This is all true when it comes to domestic policy, but on foreign policy it's equally true. Libertarians get praise from anti-war lefties when it comes to interventions. Rwanda is the best of these examples. True non-interventionists (like many of the founders) would NOT have intervened militarily to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That could DEFINITELY be seen as heartless. How libertarians can counter that, I don't even know. And by counter that I mean the heartless claim. Because you would simply have to let them slaughter those people because you'd have faith that in the long run, non-intervention and free trade will prevail.