There is no “goal” of libertarianism, aka liberalism. The reason is simple… goals are ends and only individuals have ends, not groups or society. Every political philosophy has a goal because it is the shared vision of many individuals who are willing to employ violence in the attempt to make society conform to a specific sort of outcome. Liberalism eschews the imposition of individual ends or goals on society. Therefore, liberalism is not a political philosophy at all. To the liberal, philosophical discussion of “the best political system” falls as hard on the ears as a philosophical discussion of “the best system of organized crime.” The best political system is no political system for exactly the same reason that the best system of organized crime is no system of organized crime.
One person’s maximal freedom can mean another person’s enslavement. There is no simple set of rules that “maximizes personal freedom.”
I like to think of the political problem like an onion which you peel back layer by layer to get to the core. Politics and legitimized corruption have been around for thousands of years and have accreted layer upon layer of sophistry and propaganda to justify the Grand Grift.
On the outermost layer, we perceive an uneasiness with the constant internal conflict and external war that appears to be generated by political systems and we wonder if perhaps there might be a better way to do things. Nobody likes to pay taxes, yet we all do. Peeling back this first layer of the onion, we find that underneath it is the problem of subsidized aggression where decision-makers regarding domestic and foreign policy do not bear the costs of their decisions, while they reap the benefits (spoils of war). But then, the question immediately arises, why is there a class of people (the government) who are permitted to engage in subsidized aggression? Peeling back the next layer of the onion, we find that the church (historically) and the courts (today) play the role of legitimizing the subsidized aggression practiced by the government. The legitimacy used to derived from appeals to God and the divine right of Kings supposedly granted by God. Today, we see that this is all a silly fairy tale but the most intelligent people of the day all bought into it, so englightenment and education are not sufficient to avoid collective silliness. But why do people accept the authority of a church or a court to say, “These men may make war and not bear the negative consequences of their decisions, while they may keep the spoils captured in war”? Peeling back what I believe is the final layer of the onion exposes the heart of the matter - the (inexplicable, as far as I know) propensity of human beings to accept moral double-standard under certain conditions. People generally will not tolerate double-standards. In fact, people are extremely sensitive to the social situation where one person breaks the rules that everyone else has to follow. But if that person is wearing a crown or a robe given to him by someone wearing a crown, then the exact opposite happens… people eagerly accept double-standards! To point out that the King is a hypocrite by denying to others the very same moral privileges he arrogates to himself generally results in public outcry. As long as people perceive the individual acting according to a double-standard as somehow empowered, separate or above the general population, they eagerly accept his hypocritical behavior.
So, the most important project for liberals to embark upon is to challenge this tolerance for moral double-standards of properly adorned individuals. Just becuase you’re wearing a crown, or a robe, or a ring, or a badge, or have a seal affixed under your signature does not give you any additional moral rights than anyone else has. Every human is just human, kings and presidents alike.
We need to lead a revival in moral philosophy. The first prong of this revival is to challenge the toleration of double-standards. It is impossible to have a healthy society where the King and his agents may impose double-standards in the defense of patently wrong behavior. “We seized your house under the rules of eminent domain, so that makes it OK.” The second prong is to put moral philosophy back on a proper foundation, that is, to individualize moral philosophy. Morality can be thought of as the art of choosing right ends. Today, ends are chosen mostly haphazardly and without reflection but among those who do opine on morality, there is almost universal agreement that the choice of right ends cannot be based solely or even primarily on one’s own desires irrespective of social well-being. This is the central tenet of collectivism, which is the prevailing moral sentiment today and has been for a very long time in the West.
But this is exactly wrong. The only right ends are those ends which themselves act as means (also termed “means-ends”) to the ultimate end which every acting being has - satisfaction of wants. Bastiat says of satisfaction, “as a passive being [man] experiences sensations that are painful or pleasurable. As an active being he strives to banish the former and multiply the latter. The result, which affects him again as a passive being, can be called satisfaction.” [Economic Harmonies 2.22, Emphasis original] This is similar to a very old moral philosophy called hedonism, though hedonism tends to focus on the pursuit of pleasure as an end in itself (which, in a human action framework, it is not, it is just one means to attaining satisfaction).
Rothbard argued that the correct choice of means-ends is objective and, therefore, that morality is objective. However, I think this is incorrect. The correct choice of means-ends varies from individual to individual as a result of the fact of individual variation. One man likes chocolate ice cream and despises vanilla ice cream. Another man despises chocolate ice cream and loves vanilla ice cream. Morality, like taste, is subjective. However, certain patterns in morality emerge over time, just as patterns in taste emerge over time, in response to survival pressures. Rothbard (in EoL) uses the illustration of eating a poisonous mushroom as an example of an “objectively wrong” act. But here he is confusing the objective patterns of means-ends choices that exist in the population with right and wrong means-ends. There is no right or wrong, there just is. If you choose to eat a poisonous mushroom, you’ve chosen to eat a poisonous mushroom. If you die, leaving no offspring to pass on your proclivities for poisonous psychedelics to, it is less likely that people will choose the eating of poisonous mushrooms as a means-end to the ultimate end of satisfaction.
What is more interesting to me than right or wrong is conflict. What if my chosen means-end involves obstructing one of your chosen means-ends? That is, what if I can only be happy by frustrating you? Lots of examples come to mind… murder, rape, theft, slavery, (taxation… 
) and so on. This is where I think things get very complex and very interesting. First of all, if you and I are at loggerheads over something (say, I picked up a pearl off the beach and you demand that I give it over to you), we can simply fight over it. If one of us is much stronger than the other, that person will probably win. Case closed. So, those who have more power can usually frustrate the means-ends of those who have less power by simply bullying them. But what if we’re both of roughly equal strength? Here, both of us remain uncertain as to the outcome of a contest. If you fight me for the pearl, you just might be the one who ends up dead or with broken ribs. Since we’re both uncertain as to the outcome of a contest, we both have an interest in bargaining.
When two people verbally argue out their differences, either the dispute goes back to a state of war (perhaps a standoff), or it is resolved through some kind of mutually agreed (stipulated) settlement. As time goes by, the parties will either abide by the terms of the settlement because they believe sticking to the settlement is the best choice among their available means-ends or they will end up in a dispute again over this or something else (feud). Good settlements are proven by their ability to prevent a return to conflict or standoff. Poor settlements are proven by the opposite. As many disputes are settled, people learn that certain kinds of settlement are likely to fail and other kinds are likely to succeed in preventing a return to conflict or standoff. Those terms of settlement that tend to work in preventing future conflict can be termed law and the profession of assisting people who are trying to bargain for terms of settlement of a dispute in choosing good terms of settlement (and avoiding poor terms of settlement) can be called arbitration.
But the story does not end here. Law itself feeds back and informs the means-ends choices that people make. Knowing that a certain course of action is likely to result in either direct conflict or unfavorable terms of settlement in arbitration makes that course of action - ceteris paribus - less attractive than it otherwise would have been. Such courses of action come to be perceived as unlawful. As a result of the settlement of disputes through mutual agreement to terms of settlement, society self-organizes and becomes lawful and orderly. A wise overlord is not needed. In fact, the Leviathan of Hobbes is a pox - it is the universal bully that - by virtue of its overwhelming power - may impose its means-ends upon all others. Such an organization is cancerous to lawful and orderly society. We do not have a society of law and order; we have ritualized abuse by the State and a society trapped in the dazed acquiescence of Stockholm syndrome.
OK, that was longer than I thought it would be…
Clayton -