Mega Rant On Libertarians
I'll try my best to explain what's wrong with libertarians' utopia.
First of all, a quick look at their ideals - and their shortcomings
In general, most libertarians prefer a live-and-let-live society where all people live in harmony with each other, interact strictly on voluntary basis, respect each others' private affairs and mind their own business. Violence is only approved in self-defence, if someone tries to hurt or rob you. There is no authority - or at least central authority - and the only crimes they acknowledge are the violent ones which have a victim, such as rape, theft, or murder. Outside of that, everyone is sitting on their lawns doing their thing.
Civilization is built exclusively on voluntary interactions, free market, and consensus. There is no government which dictates how to provide "public goods and services" and, therefore, no taxes. No coercion is ever used to obtain anything - be it collective defense, or something that can theoretically uplift everyone in this civilization, or basically any other Greater Good or anything advertised as such. The entire economy is governed by demands of the customers - and free enterpreneurs providing means to satisfy these demands - so no money is wasted on useless shit, ever.
And here we would've had a wonderful society, with skittles and rainbows for all. Got to admit, though, unlike other utopians, libertarians aren't being too unrealistic and aren't promising you a wonder land with no crime, everyone being kind to each other, readily available luxury goods and overflowing happiness without a single concern for anything as some magic machines will make everything for you.
Then again, one of the first questions libertarians usually ignore is how do we define and manage harm? One could argue that you, smoking weed and playing hentai videogames in peace, are actually a huge motherfuckin' threat because there are some (possibly rigged) statistics which show a correlation between people having access to videogames/drugs/porn and a rise in violence. And so, there is a group of people who believes that YOU are the threat. YOU, who actually have never had any intention to rape or kill anyone unless they themselves will be a threat for you.
On the other hand, establishing a dictatorship and banning half of stuff while strictly controlling the circulation of other half might seem an "adequate measure" by many humans. After all, it's done so you won't potentially rape or kill someone, and if you oppose this, then you're definitely aiming to rape or kill someone.
Similar tricks are being used by activists of all political spectrums. Walking around with no mask? But you could spread horrible germs. Unvaccinated? But you could spread horrible germs. The risks you bear while trusting the vaccine's safety and efficiency, and the discomfort you suffer while being forced to wear a mask (or anything else you do not want) are seen as "acceptable" in normal human societies.
Cow farts and car emissions are seen as a grave danger, based on a theory which is pushed via silencing the alternative voices, but living in prison surveillance cities is seen as an "acceptable" trade-off "so the planet won't die".
These are real life examples of real people managing both potential and real harm. Real people who libertarians believe to be able to "live and let live" just fine.
There are no realistic solutions for several other issues, such as: conflict resolution, both on small and large scale; addressing major problems which are real, such as a foreign invasion; and, of course, dealing with corrupt, power-hungry corporations massing forces to take control over some land or something like that. (There are some potentially-working solution proposed by some less popular libertarian activists, but they usually do not get mentioned in "mainstream" libertarian movements though.) These issues will be reviewed some time later in this rant, though.
Most libertarians themselves do not understand the true meaning of libertarianism
And there goes another one. Libertarians talk about dismantling government all the time, claiming it's the main obstacle to a free and prosperous society - but most of them just end up making up structures which basically emulate the government in one or another way.
Soon as there is a talk about getting rid of the current authoritarian system, there are questions like, "But who will..." build roads, fight crime, enforce laws, harass people for setting up lemonade stands, make up bullshit excuses for taking a huge portion of your money, and meddle with your private business while claiming to be helpful? And in a libertarian society, the answer is: no one. You don't even need that kind of shit in a libertarian society, save the roads.
The police, for example, has no place in such a society; the entire agency is a law enforcement institution, which primarily serves to enforce the laws and other codes of the country it works for. In a libertarian society, there are no laws, since it is based not on an authoritarian but instead on a consensus approach - and therefore, such a society is run by its citizens, not by some sort of a codex or a ruler. If there are no laws, there is no need for a law enforcement organization - and therefore, no concept of crime.
Libertarian societies are radically different from your traditional societies, which are run by some sort of laws and other principles - the very same action could be treated as a serious offense under one set of circumstances and can be perfectly acceptable under another set. For example, shooting a gun in your own backyard isn't a problem - and you can do that as much as you want - but if you manage to actually damage someone else's property or harm someone, then you take full responsibility for that. Or, if you're driving at some insanely high speeds, there is no problem with just that - but if you, once again, damage something or hurt someone, then you're in a huge fuckin' trouble. Potential dangers tied to an action are in no way a basis for any kind of external intervention; an action can be dangerous, yet there will never, ever be any attempt to ban and regulate it. All responsibility is placed on the actor themselves.
On the other hand, any person can be denied or granted certain sorts of communal aid, or participation in certain social affairs - for no reason other than the consensus of members of said society. Or even, some part of such a society might grant them clearance for participation while the other part will keep them away - for example, a person might receive some sort of communal protection and assistance against aggressive acts from one group, but others will completely ignore it if said person is threatened by some "criminal". They might receive a sort-of "welfare" or "free" services from a certain group of persons or an organization, but outside of that, no one else will provide them that kind of relief.
TL;DR Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is uniform in a libertarian society. There is no "order", no "discipline" and no "respect for the law" - only the more or less dynamic, free interaction of persons based on their free will and their willingness to engage or not to engage in certain affairs with each other.
And as a result of libertarians not understanding that, they tend to make up a solution to the "How do we make a society that has no authority, but at the same time has nearly all the traits of a society that is ruled by a central authority". Which leads them to making up concepts such as a "private police force" and a "private court" and "natural law" and, well, all the way to private security organizations as alternatives to military, private jails, and in some cases even private "contract jurisdictions" or "private social associations" which are literally entire nation states run by a corporation or a conglomerate of corporations. Sometimes with taxes and the whole government apparatus, because why TF not.
In other words, a libertarian's vision of a functioning libertarian society is often a... state, but (maybe) without the executive powers. Everything what the states of today have, minus taxes. And, a stern belief that this thing won't turn into a dictatorship just because they don't want their utopia to collapse.
But can an actual libertarian society be built and exist for a long period of time?
Short answer: Yes, under certain conditions.
Long answer:
What kind of society will you have depends first and foremost on its members. What kind of people are making up your society is what kind of society you're getting.
If you've got a society made of enterpreneurs and merchants, you are highly unlikely to push anything like market regulation, socialism, or protectionist policies. If you've got a society with deep respect towards art, restraints on freedom of expression will be severely opposed. A society made of hunters, warriors, and/or homesteaders is impossible to disarm.
Then again, professional traits aren't the only factor. A society made of strong-willed individuals can't be forced to comply with pretty much anything, while a society made of persons interacting primarily through negotiation and voluntary agreements doesn't even have that kind of problem, though it is recommended to be prepared to deal with it. If your society has a large amount of individuals with tribal mindset, however, there will be a lot of conflict and rivalry; exactly what will be used for conflict resolution is another question.
So, you can indeed build a libertarian society and make it last - long as the people who make up that society satisfy a certain set of requirements and conditions. First, you'll definitely need your members to have a preference towards consensual resolution of conflicts and disputes as opposed to solving them via contest of force; and that means, first they attempt negotiations, and then, if that fails - and if the need to fulfill a requirement stays a priority to alternatives - other measures. A libertarian society requires maximum respect for each person's s sovereignty both over own selves and their dominion and possessions; as a result, offensive persons who prefer a force-based approach to relationships are grossly incompatible with any libertarian society. At the same time, since the threat of conquest or subversion is present within any society at any given moment, such a society needs to be ready to counter such a threat. For that to happen, every member of such a society needs to be ready to neutralize said threats. To achieve that, every member of a libertarian society shall be ready to defend their own interests against any aggressor. Since liberty by itself yields a long-term, abstract benefit, it is expected to be more desired by those with stronger will and more developed cognitive abilities because for everyone else, the benefits of being free are basically invisible due to their absolute and utter lack of foresight and abstract cognition. Especially when pitted against the benefits of having "guaranteed" food, care and protection. That is, for a libertarian society to work, its members' priorities must be shifted towards at least a balance of primal/animalistic drives and conscious self-control, preferably with reason-backed control over all own interests and desires and decision-making controlled by higher cognition. Mutual respect for each other's sovereignty is necessary for the "live and let live" to happen; otherwise, it all just ends in various groups trying to subvert each other via a combination of aggressive ideologies, outright violence, and psychological tricks.
Building a libertarian society: what could go wrong?
So, in most libertarians' eyes, building a libertarian society is about as simple as getting rid of the State one way or another, or even outright ignoring it and waiting for it to starve and die. Then, the entire fabric of society mysteriously disappears, all social relationships which build the society as we know today magically transform and turn into voluntary contracts just because. Or they just don't pay much attention to that small part, instead believing that things are the way they are because of some sneaky elites and if we get rid of them, the entire system will transform.
The reality, however, is that there were some successful attempts to dismantle the government. Exactly this have happened during the October-November Revolution in 1917 in Russian Empire, which was led by the infamous Lenin. And the revolutionaries have won! The state was no more, and so should've been the system of oppression, right?..
After all, since the revolutionaries have won, and the state was destroyed, the only way how we could end up with a dictatorship is to... rebuild the state anew, right? Such is the libertarian theory. And if the scary elites are no more, then how do we rebuild the state?..
And then, Lenin have gone bad. I mean, just a year after his ramblings about how good it is to arm citizens and how bad is the state, he basically called for disarmament of his citizens and built a de-facto socialist state some time later. But according to libertarian theories, he shouldn't have succeeded! Because since Lenin is supposedly the only asshole in the whole stage, and maybe there were some extra assholes which were his cronies, the People who've obtained the newfound Power should've stopped this fag, shouldn't have they? After all, they're all innately good.
Turns out that way too many of those "good" people, instead of throwing Lenin into a prison where he would rot for the rest of his miserable life, have instead followed his orders. Which means that:
- These people might've been not very good in the first place.
- These people didn't really mind living under the state.
- These people didn't really give a lot of fuck about their personal liberties since a lot of them just disarmed themselves upon Lenin's command.
This already undermines libertarians' theories regarding the good humans and the very bad elites a lot. The people, instead of building a voluntary community, have instead built one of the most authoritarian and oppressive states in human history, even more authoritarian and oppressive than the contemporary fascist states.
Which means, there is at least one critical flaw in libertarians' views. Namely, that the people aren't what they believe them to be.
Most humans just don't care enough about their liberties
Throughout human history, those who were really concerned about freedom and personal sovereignty were so rare, they've managed to get their names recorded in history. Most of the time, humans have lived in hierarchic, often authoritarian societies with little respect for personal autonomy, where it was widely accepted that someone in the upper layer of hierarchy could do most everything they wanted to their subordinates. Those who did express concerns for personal liberty were more often rejected, shunned or outright hated than respected.
From slaves who mostly voluntarily served their masters in exchange for "guaranteed" food and shelter, to medieval peasants who were more than happy to do dumb labor and not think about a single issue outside of having a good harvest, to welfare receivers who very often care about government handouts more than about having full economic freedom and, finally, to climate/CoVID fanatics who're ready to sign off all of their rights just so the made-up threat of climate change not even understood by them never happens - those people are actually happy with living under an authority.
After all, the same government which wants to arrest you for smoking weed in peace or fine you for driving without a seat belt claims to do it "for your own safety". There are health/safety concerns, so if we just let people smoke weed, they'll hurt themselves, right? And since most known humans are just too stupid to take on a responsibility of informed personal choice, they just relay the job to the Government, trusting them to know the best.
The same government that regulates the nation's economy claims to do it for "public interests" as well. Again, instead of watching your own health closely and not being a careless dumbass who gets in serious accidents, why don't you just advocate a universal, taxpayer-funded medical care? If you become a dumbass and hurt yourself, the doctor will supposedly fix you up. (Though from the example of several countries, such as Russia, who do have taxpayer-funded medical services - it is evident that medical services will be really shitty this way. But who cares. Long as there is an illusion of guaranteed quality medical treatment.) And there are roads, and firefighters, and cops and several other "public facilities" which could've been left to the market and crowdfunding, indeed, but those options just don't seem to be guaranteed enough for the normies.
Instead o dealing with hardships, most humans prefer to lay them on the others - not a bad idea on itself, but does it really seem so attractive when you trade away something as critical as personal liberty in exchange? Sure thing, if those personal liberties are actually critical or even just important enough, the answer is "no".
Long as those liberties are important.
Most humans are too violent and can't manage it
While violence by itself is just a tool, humans can't handle this tool effectively so it would aid progress and not ruin it.
Libertarianism, by its nature, is highly incompatible with offensive violence - especially towards fellow members of the same society - and requires an extremely careful approach to making decisions about using force. As a philosophy focused on minimizing external interference with one's own affairs and minimal possible presence of undesirables on one's property, it doesn't welcome using force against any members of that society except for the goal of self-defence, where the consequences of a violent confrontation are considered less harmful than the results of allowing the potential threat/offender to just do their thing. Of course, once engaging in any external conflict also threatens one's status quo ante-bellum, which is a preferable condition, it is natural for libertarians to attempt to avoid any external conflicts just as the internal ones.
Humans' philosophy, on the other hand, is nothing like that. It's more like "seize whatever moment you can to attack those around you and attempt to subjugate them". Most modern movements, religions and ideologies are exactly that: exploiting various interests and struggles in a attempt to gain a dominant position over others. More often than not, humans strive for ruling others through force rather than coexistence in peace and voluntary cooperation.
Most of all, obedience and subservient behavior towards the strong-hand man is also part of human philosophy; after all, should the masses not be servile and submissive, we'd not have an established hierarchy - but instead, a constant rivalry and various-scale warfare barely restrained by anything, as the subservient ones would constantly challenge their so-called rulers in a struggle for dominance. However, it does not mean that even those subservient are meek and timid; on the contrary, they're only bowing before the strong out of self-preservation instinct, to not be immediately crushed by an overwhelming force. Those weaker than them, or those on a lower hierarchical tier, are being oppressed by them even stronger than they themselves are being ruled by their superiors; first, because of their natural desire to dominate; and second, because they use their subordinates to vent off their frustration from being ruled by their lords.
The urge to dominate through force is observed on every visible level of human interaction - from the highest known authorities, down to the modern analogs of peasants; and from large countries bullying the smaller ones physically or economically, to a single family raising their child through violence, both physical and psychological. The weakest layer of our society, the children, faces constant violence and oppression from every adult authorized to oversee them - especially their "dear" family, who are supposed to guide and protect them according to their own claims, not to beat them savagely for not conforming to their parents' whims and not control their kids' free time, access to pleasure, and personal aspirations and interests - though the latter is what most families actually do to their kids.
And those families are made up of humans from all social layers - humans who are supposedly "peaceful" and "just fine with living without authority and violence".
Most humans have both upper-limited minds and interests
Therefore, the need for freedom, which is mostly demanded by those with limitless potential for personal gain - both material, mental and other - is very limited among such limited humans.
Long as there is no easy way to be fed, sheltered, comforted and protected, humans do demand some freedom - to be able to find their own sources of food, their own lands to hunt and forage, to fend off any unwanted invaders claiming their lands, and to build their own pack or a tribe - these needs come from a simple primal drive to survive. Without freedom to act, a group or an individual are simply far too limited to be successful against their freer rivals, who might just claim the uncharted lands while they're limited in their actions.
This becomes no longer true in a civilization powerful enough to feed a large group of people, house them, treat many common diseases and traumas, protect them from many threats, and even provide them some comfort. Since all of their demands are fulfilled, there is simply nothing most humans would need liberty for. Save for, again, satisfying some of their animal instincts.
And if they can be satisfied while sacrificing their liberty - then the reason to be free exhausts itself for such humans.
Individuals with stronger and/or more developed personalities and capabilities are, however, another story. Having more than one "goal generator" mechanism,thanks to their higher cognition playing a huge role in their interests and demands, they have the potential for infinite personal growth - which, in turn, requires absolute freedom.
Of course, such individuals are grossly incompatible with any "unfree" society, thanks to the sheer difference in their driving goals and interests - and, in turn, those who just want to have an easy life with everyone solving their problems for them, are grossly incompatible with a society which prizes personal autonomy, sovereignty, and responsibility for own choices and actions.
Most humans prefer tight collectives with strong interdependence
In other words, they don't even want to "live, let live and be left alone". And they sure as hell do not want to live you alone.
Due to their tendency to look for someone to load their troubles on, and due to their tendency to depend on others - as well as their limited personal capabilities - they prefer a collectivist social model, where individuals are far less valued than communities and organizations. The average human sees individuals as something between tools and barely-more-than-insignificant "members of the community"; such a mindset doesn't just stand in the way of a libertarian utopia, it outright prevents any notion of personal autonomy and sovereignty.
And since humans just can't imagine themselves as full-blown individuals, not "members" or "parts" of something, the very notion of an individual being left alone and treated as a sovereign being is just impossible to fathom for them.
In most human societies, division of labor is very strict; individuals are mostly trained for specialized labor; most humans are following some sort of trends instead of relying on their own will; and, of course, any expression of personal volition or individuality is not only not respected or valued enough, but is actually unwelcome as it, as well as any deviation from the Collective's trends and norms, is seen as a threat for the Collective. Or simply a "malfunction".
This is how humans, a de-facto semi-sapient species, have evolved to survive. Utilizing their limited capabilities in limited specialties, and organizing tightly-bound collectives, they've managed to build civilizations even with their limited capabilities. This, however, leads them to being highly repressive towards the individual beings, as well as evolving a culture that prizes the will of Majority, and the absolute right of the collective to do whatever the fuck they want with individual beings which is the direct opposite of libertarian ideals.
In short...
While libertarians themselves have some amazing ideals, they just don't work in a "normal" human society. Even a society that does manage to beat the system for a while, usually quickly returns to its status quo ante-bellum - after all, they are the system they're trying to fight.
How come? Can't humans just keep their liberty once they've earned it, much more if it was done via blood and sweat?
Short answer: It appears they can't.
Long answer:
Liberty is all good and well, but... who'll build roads? Who'll weed out criminals? Who will tell people what should they do for a living? Who will provide them aid and comfort? Who will keep them safe? In short, who will make their lives easy and comfortable?
In addition to that, as progress moves forward, some of the old issues get resolved - but along with that, the new ones appear. As a civilization's might changes, so do its members' demands - some of the old ones get solved, thanks to new capabilities brought about by new technologies, but then again, new concerns appear. Once you've got arms to fight off predators, you aren't very afraid of big animals eating you, but there is where you get armed criminals. Got enough food to survive? Okay, we'll need to fight off scary diseases then. Secured that as well? Now, we can think of making food and medicine easily available for all, since we've got sooo much of them...
And as these new problems appear, humans are in need of new solutions for them. And that's where that so-attractive option appears: leave it for the big guys, just do as they say and they'll do it for you. The alternative is taking that problem on yourself - finding the best solution for you, processing a lot of alternatives before finding the best one, doing what it takes to solve it yourself... And, of course, if you do fail at this one, there is no one to blame but you, and when you'll need to fix it, it's again up to you. Doesn't the option two sound a lot more cumbersome?
So it all boils down to one's personality. What would one prefer? Just let the Big Ones take on these tasks and doing as they tell you - but depending on them too much and letting them run your life to a degree? Or placing all the responsibilities and burdens on yourself - but, in turn, not being dependent on those Big Guys and staying free and sovereign? Freedom or a worry-free life - what would one prefer?
And there we go: just because there was a successful uprising or a reform that got rid of tyrants, doesn't mean the humans have radically changed. You still have roughly the same fraction of persons not willing to surrender their self-ownership and autonomy for an "easier" life vs. those who aren't willing to surrender their easy life for some self-government and autonomy. So... even if you do manage to invent freedom-respecting and effective solutions for every significant problem you have today - once the new issues come in, your society will just go back to looking for help from the Big One. And it won't take very long for someone to fulfill that role. At the expense of their autonomy and self-ownership.
This isn't a problem you can solve by teaching people the evils of the government or "waking them up". Besides, if you were sound asleep and some asshole would come up and rudely wake you up and demand some action you don't think you need, won't it just make you pissed instead of grateful? Same thing with those "asleep" "normie" "sheep" or whatever you like to call them. They know what they're in for, and they seem to like it that way.
A bunch of solutions for actual libertarians
Note: here I will be assume that you're a libertarian primarily because you seek liberty for yourself - and whether the others will be free from the gov or not, it's another question. Moralists and unity worshippers: I've just explained why you can't build a global libertarian society. But keep trying, I'm not trying to discourage you. :)
Option 1: Private caretakers and bought privileges in exchange for certain rights
A society where competing (or seemingly-competing) enterprises will provide particular desired privileges (such as universal basic income, or guaranteed medical care) in exchange for some personal rights (regulated employment/trade, additional duties, or maybe limited possibilities in society) to their clients/members.
By default, an individual will only have a "basic rights" set such as the right to life, liberty, and property. They will, indeed, have the full right to use the public utilities such as roads and transport; they will be able to engage in any voluntary deals with anyone willing to deal with them However, there will be no such things as social guarantees; no guaranteed income; no guaranteed employment; no guarantee that a dealer will trade with them, or employ them; not even the police which they can rely on in case someone tries to harass them. (Though they have the full right to destroy any offender or anything that threatens them. Or even capture them and sell their organs/the offenders themselves, for slavery or tests, for example.) There will be no guaranteed education (though there will be no direct effort to ward them off any publicly-available information) and no "guaranteed pathway for employment" (once again, no issue with them finding themselves a means to earn money on their own). In other words, maximum reasonable freedom - and minimum guarantees.
Of course, a basic lifestyle is going to be absolutely free, but highly challenging. That's where the need for those "convenience enterprises".
These are basically private entities which advertise themselves as one or another form of the State or its alternative. They might be either controlled by a single entity, or by a multitude of private enterpreneurs, or even be in a sort of hierarchy - or have an entirely different relationship model. These entities will basically offer certain "rights" to citizens - at the expense of some of their autonomy. For example: to protect the people from dangerous misinformation, they would be monitoring their customers' communications and applying censorship "as necessary"; to build a convenient living, they'll create a digital prison "paradise city" where everything is done through some digital interface, and surveillance is installed "for your security and convenience"; wanting to have a guaranteed employment will include some "professional guidance" which is basically influencing a customer's choice in picking a profession...
In other words, what the State is doing will be done as sort-of "services" to those who choose that kind of "patronage". And instead of having just one system across an entire region or even the entire nation, there will be multiple "subscription plans" - regimes approximately tailored to individual consumers' needs - each of them designed to be adequately restrictive for the customer in question and, at the same time, pleasurable enough for said customer since it is tailored to their needs more than a uniform regime.
The possibility of life without a patron dictating your life (and providing you handouts and privileges) is indeed possible; however, such a life will not be promoted and will even be ridiculed to degree in popular culture/mass media/ads - having "rights" and "privileges" will be advertised both as cool and hip, and as practical. All for a small price - and coming with just a little amount of restrictions or inconveniences, but who really cares about these? Look at what we offer in exchange! Medical services, social security, employment regulations, assistance for both small and medium businesses, safe spaces, accomodations for minorities, special treatment for "protected ideologies", safety regulations... And so much, much more!
And of course, to get all of this, the ordinary people will have to sacrifice just a teeny tiny bit of their freedom and sovereignty. But is their freedom really more important than safety and convenience? And "sovereignty", do they even know that word? If they didn't read Facebook's TOS and Privacy Policy before signing up - chances are they're not.
And like this, it is very possible to build a lot of different communities - and they can co-exist just fine with each other. And, with free, sovereign persons.
Citizens will be encouraged to move into their respective chosen regions; for example, anti-gun "liberals" will be encouraged to move into tightly-controlled, possibly walled-off cities where there will be both extensive surveillance and patrolling "for their safety"; entering and leaving such a city will be strictly regulated, again, "to secure the place from the terrorists and criminals". In contrast, conservatives will be urged to move into smaller towns, not "with 18th-century level technologies" like the WEF wanted them to, but still - they will be mostly living in their private homes, doing mostly manual work. And acting like a sort-of militia in reserve, ready to defend their nation whenever necessary. Of course, actual oppression of clients should be kept to a minimum - to reduce chances of revolt - and ensure that the only ones unhappy will be those who really want to be free and independent. And those can just easily unsubscribe from the platform, and plan their emigration from the prison city - or from a religious conservative town - into a personal home somewhere outside these towns and cities.
Option 2: Meritocratic feudalism of sorts
There is one reason why plebs didn't have a say in how their country would work. Right, that's because their suggestions are more often based ot on a deep analysis of underlying problems and an intelligent approach to solving them, but instead on impulses and emotions.
Another alternative is a sort-of feudal society - a hierarchical one, however where meritocracy plays a large role. Though it's much worse than the option above, especially for libertarians, it might be more realistic in Asian countries, such as China, Russia, Japan, or Korea.
It is assumed that, in such a society, a fraction of "upper layer" positions is taken by those with significant merit - talented and/or intelligent persons, who've somehow proven themselves to be capable of solving complex tasks. And since those individuals can handle living without the Daddy State's intervention - it is reasonably assumed they're smart enough to administrate at least small communities.
To address small groups' needs adequately, it might be reasonable to select those more capable from "lower layers" and uplift them to a ruling position, where they'll have significantly more liberties as there is little to no reason to actually restrain them. Similar treatment shall be granted to those with significant artistic/creative inclinations; any progress in a society requires an unhindered approach.
Whether the person in question shows significant artistic/creative abilities, or an ability to handle complex cognition, or even extensive knowledge on how does a society work - knowledge of its structure and operation down to a certain level of detail - they might be offered an "uplifting" of sorts, where they'll be positioned far above "ordinary peasants" - and tasked with far more important tasks than laying bricks, tilling fields, or crunching some routine data at some company. The reason behind such "uplifting" is simple: said person will be far more useful at solving more important social tasks than be left as a simple peasant.
And since such persons are more important, more liberties can be granted to them in return.
Such a social model is not generally preferred to the private caretaker model, and its usefulness is limited to collectivist/traditionalist countries (Russia, China, Japan and such) where there is a strong collectivist/hierarchical mindset present.
Option 3: "Rewarding obedience"
The most straightforward approach so far: Do as you're recommended, get freebies.
Once again, in such a society, every individual has their freedoms and rights - property rights, self-defence rights, and freedom of choice in both their minds and actions - but just like in Option 1, they get no special privileges. However, there exists a reward system, which provides "good" individuals some special treatment, or privileges. For example, an individual known to live by some certain religious teachings will be rewarded by their respective community in some way, such as getting faster promotions at their workplace or faster service; or, alternatively, an individual actively participating in charity (By providing a significant fraction of their income) or taking part in some "important" social programs will receive either one-time or continuous rewards, depending on the nature of their contributions.
More generally, there could be some sort of "desired social behavior" defined - as well as appropriate rewards for that, and, of course, moral encouragement from media - and individuals showing compliance with such behavior will be offered certain rewards, such as: Social security, discounts for medical care/free medical services, priority treatment in some "non-essential" services (such as hotels, transport, and postal/delivery), or even increased job opportunities or relaxed conditions for application.
Again, a non-obedient citizen can live in such a society just fine, and can easily access the same facilities as others do - however, their society would do its best to encourage obedience (both via media and via "virtue signalers"), and they shall not count on any preferential treatment anywhere in the "mainstream" society. Though they will not be restrained or oppressed in any way, and are essentially free to pursue their goals as they please, they will lack the so-much-desired social integration; shall they be in any need of support, the ones they should most rely upon is themselves.
Though such a system is designed for Asian-style countries as well (particularly, Japan-like), a limited use of it can be beneficial even in Western countries. Exploiting humans' desire to show off and receive social appreciation, a set of "voluntary social credits" can be created - mechanisms which monitor mainstream social media networks, as well as popular messaging apps, analyzing their users' behavior, and assigning them a score based on their behavior they themselves express in those networks. Various institutions, both private and public, will have their own "social credit" databases, and trade data with each other as they seem fit; the exception is public surveillance, which an individual can not opt out of - if it would exist, any data gathered from it shall not be a part of social credit anywhere, to avoid unnecessary complaints and unrest in the system.
In such a society, the desire to show off and brag present in so many humans will not only be satisfied by posting various shit to Twitter/Facebook, but actually rewarded. Posted a picture of your big family of three kids? You will certainly up your social credit in many institutions for improving our demographics. What's that, your family in church on your day off? Not bad, keep up indoctrinating yourself. You will have an extra bonus somewhere, too. Donated to charity? Extra respect coming up.
Conclusion
If libertarians want any meaningful changes in their society, they should, first and foremost, stop clinging to an ideal system which requires all humanity to be made of ideal humans and instead, consider something that really works. These options above are just some suggestions I've made. One can try to invent their own solution, because why not.
That would surely beat sitting on your ass and blaming the "statists" while hoping that the real humanity will suddenly turn into the ideal humanity and build a libertarian society out-of-nowhere.