Libertarianism is better than Utilitarianism

I proceed with some definitions: Libertarianism: a value system that deems anything moral as long as it does not violates people's property rights, including their ownership of their own bodies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [1] Utilitarianism: a value system that seeks to maximize utility (achieving the greatest good for the greatest number) Burden of proof: My opponent, as the instigator, must prove that pure libertarianism is a superior moral system to utilitarianism. Libertarianism may be a great political philosophy, but if fails as a complete moral system. For that reason, it is possible to be a utilitarian libertarian. [2] Beginning with my case: 1. "He would die anyway" The following situation is based upon a moral dilemma posed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University: You are walking through a conflict zone and encounter a rebel commander who is about to order his men to slaughter a village of innocent people. For his amusement, the rebel commander stops you, hands you a gun, and says that if you kill one villager, he will spare the rest of the village. Utilitarianism instructs you to kill one villager to save the rest; libertarianism tells you to refuse to violate the villager's right to life, and, in refusing to get your hands dirty, allow the rebel commander to murder the entire village. 2. Violate property rights to save the world Another moral dilemma: Someone finds and thus owns ("finders keepers") a meteor rock. Aliens come to Earth, threatening to destroy the planet if the meteor is not returned to them. The owner refuses to give up the rock. Libertarianism says that it is immoral to violate the person's property rights, and all of Earth should perish. Utilitarianism instructs us to seize the rock and return it to the aliens, thus saving the world. [3] 3. Collective action problems A collective action problem is "a situation in which everyone (in a given group) has a choice between two alternatives and where, if everyone involved chooses the alternative act that is Individualistically Rational (IR), the outcome will be worse for everyone involved, in their own estimation, than it would be if they were all to choose the other alternative. " [4] An example of a collective action problem is: 25 small businesses align one street. The storefronts all have graffiti on them. It costs an individual storeowner $10 to hire someone to clean his storefront. If he does, every single business gets $5 more in sales because people prefer to shop in "nice neighborhoods. " However, the storeowners individualistically ration (IR) decision is not to clean his storefront, since if everyone else cleans theirs, he gets all the extra business for free, and it costs more to clean his own store ($10) than the additional business he gets from his own cleaning ($5). Because each storeowner thinks like this, no stores will be cleaned. All the storeowners are worse off because of this collective action problem. Utilitarianism can solve collective action problems: pass a city ordinance requiring storefronts to be kept clean (or face a $30 fine, for example). Then each storeowner will clean his storefront and they will all be better off in terms of sales. Libertarianism says that such an ordinance is "immoral" because it violates the storeowners' property rights (such as forcing them to pay a fine). Libertarianism does not allow solutions to collective action problems, which makes society worse off. Moving to my opponent's case. 1. Utilitarianism does not allow the wanton sacrificing of member's of society. 2. Utilitarianism can also be used to oppose wealth redistribution. /Out of characters. [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com... [3] Ibid [4] . http://faculty.washington.edu...