Libertarianism is flawed

Essentially Pro believes that the world is black and white, and that all decisions must be based on this black and white scale. Unfortunatly we don't live in a black and white world. We live in a world of gray, a world that has an endless number of shades of gray. Pro said it himself that pacifism leads to a better standard of living, yet he accuses me, (or at least my philospohy) of taking that stance too far. I fail to see how using the idea of not hurting anyone, as a baseline for your decisions, as a flaw. Pro gives a specific scenario for us to chew on. To be fair his scenario has been taken to an absurdity. Why is there no charity willing to help out Larry? Does Larry not have ANY family to help him drive his daughter to the doctor? No friends? He can't call a Taxi? He can't ask the doctor to please make a special house call for his dying daughter? Would a doctor be so heartless as to tell him no? Are there no private companies willing to conduct the treatment at Larry's house? Why is there absolutely no welfare for Larry to fall back on? Why does Larry have to have a car loan? He can't scrape together five hundred bucks to buy a beater car? I neither expect nor really want Pro to answer these questions. I am merely pointing out that even in his very detailed scenario Larry still has other ways of getting through what is obviously a hard time. Further these questions are meant to illustrate the fact that we cannot envision every possible choice and outcome for every single individual circumstance in the world. However, what we can do is have a basic philosophy to guide us through the gray. But for the sake of argument lets assume the above scenario is valid. The bottom line is that Larry entered into a contract. He agreed that he would pay a certain amount of money on a certain basis and that if he failed to do so, the loan company could take the car. Larry therefore, has no right to use force in order to keep his car. He can use any other means he wishes, as I outlined above in my questions, but force is not one of them. Assuming that you consider the taking of the car an act of force by the company, yes it is justified. Why? Because those are the terms that Larry, (assuming) a fully capable and responsible adult, agreed to. He cannot get mad at the company as he has failed to complete his end of the agreement. In the above scenario Larry's personal liberty is not being violated by the repossession of his car. In fact the repossession is the affirmation of his liberty. Larry never owned the vehicle out right. He had it on loan from a company. The vehicle is the property of the company. What do I mean that his liberty is not being violated, but in fact being affirmed? Because Larry is free to enter into any legal contract he wishes. However, he is not free to violate said contract as that would mean he is causing harm to the other party. So what about compassion? Don't I feel bad for Larry? Don't I want his daughter to live? Well of course I do. Which is why I would willingly give Larry either the money he needs or another car. That's called charity. To assume it doesn't exist is to assume that all humans have lost compassion. Pro has created a Kobayashi Maru, and as Kirk said, "I don't believe in a 'no win' scenario."