Libertarianism is flawed

My opponent is completely correct; the world is not black and white. It is gray, sometimes pale gray some other times, dark, but still gray. However, I am glad my opponent referenced the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek, for it does illustrate my next concern with libertarianism perfectly, but only if you add Kirk. Why is that? All in due time. First let me say to HandsofManos. I'm sorry, but I must answer some of your rebuttals or else I risk leaving holes in my argument, please note this is not a continuation of my scenario. It is simply to state the reasons for my argument. Yes, the scenario was taken to an all-out worst-case situation, but I wouldn't quite call it absurd. I don't recall mentioning anything like Larry's car being a Hummer with good fuel mileage. However yes, it was a little rushed and rough around the edges, but all the events mentioned in the scenario were all based on real-life incidents. I'm sure my opponent will agree that families with sick or dying children will do anything to protect them, even if that means for getting reason and logic. There have been cases of repo men being threatened with weapons. And physical harm, the three links you see are examples. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Unlike these people, Larry is not selfish, and does have a reason to fight for this car, and if he could simply give it up and get a new car, he would. As for the lack of support from Larry's friends and family, simply put: I never stated the size of Larry's family but from the scenario, we can assume it's small. Possibly just an elderly grandparent, as for his friends, they do have lives of their own, they have jobs and their own concerns, they can help, but not possibly all the time. The doctor could make a house call, but we can assume that Larry's daughter needs to go to a specialized facility for treatment, which is unable to be performed at his home. I'm a bit surprised my opponent commented on the lack of welfare. This link takes you to the Libertarian party's website. http://www.lp.org... As for why no charity is willing to help Larry and his family. He's simply not in serious need of charity; Larry has a home in enough money to pay for it. Therefore the charity is better spent on people without homes and anyway, I don't think any Libertarian can promise that charities will always have an infinite amount of money to give to everyone who needs it. After all, you can't force people to give to charity. And if you do, then it's no different to state welfare. Now Larry situation was not to be a no-win scenario, it was simply a hypothetical question meant to show libertarians, not everything goes to plan, and not everyone is perfect, that there is possibly a situation in the world where the right course of action is to initiate force, but that is kind of the problem was a volunteer society, and that problem is, you can't force people to volunteer the same way. You can't force them to give to charity, and also, funnily enough, you can't expect everyone to follow the rules. Which brings me onto my next criticism of libertarianism. It's biased towards the free market over government. To illustrate my point, let's put it like this, the football team's coach thought that the referees were biased when they made many bad calls for their team without penalising the other team for similar plays. I just wonder, why is it only the government that can sponsored terrorism, international espionage, and manipulating the press to convince the people to ignore the obvious problems, because last time I checked Fox news was a privately owned news network. So why can't a multibillion dollar multinational corporation do any of these things. They've got the money, and no one can vote them out of office. You could be a shareholder however and then your vote does count. The problem is, you may only have one share and the guy you voted against has 1000 and that, my friends, is what we call jenga. But what am I getting at here, well let's say they are two companies competing with each other, both are easily matched in wealth and size, but one has better management than the other. This company let's call it Company-A, over the long-term will prove to be the better, whilst the other one, and let's call this one Company-B, will inevitably fail. So what are the options for this weaker company? Well there are two options it can take. 1.It can admit defeat and fail: 9 times out of 10 this is what would probably happen. And unless the company is bought by another business, a lot of people, including the shareholders, would either lose their jobs or their invested money, because when a company goes under, it's not a pretty sight. 2.It can find another way: there are always other options. Problem is, you'll have to ask yourself how far are you willing to go to win, because that's what this thing is, a competition, but the stakes are a whole lot higher. Let's say Company-B takes option 2. I see no reason why they wouldn't consider using corporate espionage to get valuable information to help them get a leg up on Company-A, or even inside trading to try to weaken their competitor. This can be done through bribery, using this tactic they could convince many members of Company-A board of directors to use their shares of the company to help carry out a hostile takeover. But this is not a form of aggression. You see, Company-A was at risk of going under because of bad management, and concerned shareholders secretly open negotiations with Company-B, who haves superior management to intervene and save their company by performing a merger. They were force into this predicament from the hostile nature of Company-A. Now, does that make sense to you, well it shouldn't, this contradicts what I said earlier, this wasn't a peaceful secret merger. This was a hostile takeover, but that's not what Company-A's privately owned news channels says. Whoops, I mean that's what Company-B's brand-new news channels says. So, just like Kirk Company-B doesn't believe in a no-win situation, that it will cheat to win. But unlike Kirk, the company did this for selfish reasons and destroyed its rival to maintain its survival. This small, scenario can expand to include 3 companies, and the 2 weaker companies join forces to defeat the larger more successful one, because they didn't want to lose. This is less of a criticism of libertarianism, more of a question actually. And that question is this, how do libertarians deal with this, because this is not what libertarians want, what is in place to prevent this from happening.