I enjoyed Ed Feser's essay "Self-Ownership, Libertarianism, and Impartiality" a great deal and strongly recommend it to anybody who believes that libertarianism is, in any interesting sense, impartial between the various going moral & political worldviews of our time. He's right: it's not.
That said, I do have a few quibbles. Here's one.
Prof. Feser writes:
"...it is very difficult to believe that [a libertarian polity] best promotes happiness in Aristotle's sense of the term. For the market maximizes the satisfaction, not of all preferences, but rather of those backed by the most spending power. It is bound, then, to cater to the most vulgar tastes and passions - which are, by definition, the most common and thus the ones most people will pay to satisfy - rather than to more refined sensibilities. And since on an Aristotelian conception an individual's moral character - his characteristic habits and sensibilities - is inevitably deeply influenced by the character types and sensibilities prevailing in the society around him, it follows that a commercial society is one in which the sort of refined moral character that most fully manifests the realization of human potentialities, and thus most fully guarantees human happiness, is bound to be very rare and difficult to achieve."
So in a libertarian polity, I guess we would all be swept away by a rising tide of trashy pop-culture: Dan Brown in place of Dante, Bob Dylan or Steely Dan in place of Verdi,* "Girls Gone Wild" in place of Grunewald. Taste and decency - not to mention philosophy and geometry - would wither on the vine.
I.e., culturally speaking, it would be just like living in the left-liberal polity we're actually stuck with!
But is this right? I'm not so sure. Here's the crucial passage: "...the market maximizes the satisfaction, not of all preferences, but rather of those backed by the most spending power. It is bound, then, to cater to the most vulgar tastes and passions - which are, by definition, the most common and thus the ones most people will pay to satisfy - rather than to more refined sensibilities."
Well. If wealth in a libertarian polity were evenly distributed amongst the populace, no doubt this would be true. But it wouldn't be. Rather, it would tend to accumulate in the hands of the ambitious, the smart, the talented, the hard-working, etc.
(Also the lucky and the well-connected - but hey: the lucky and the well-connected ye shall always have with you, here in Arda Marred.)
And why should we believe that the ambitious, the smart, the talented, the hard-working, etc. would remain forever satisfied with Tim LaHaye, Kanye West & Fleshbot?
If there's anything we know about homo sapiens - and especially the ambitious, the smart, the talented, the hard-working, etc. among them - it's that they're obsessed with status. And you can't win status by eating at McDonald's.
Things being as they are, the possibility of anything even remotely describable as a "libertarian polity" arising anywhere on Earth is so miniscule that it's hardly worth arguing about. But I very much doubt that an explosion of philistinism would be among its problems.
* * * * *
Please note that this is all purely empirical speculation that bears not at all on the philosophical excellence of Dr. Ed's essay.
* * * * *
*Just kidding, guys ;^)