Would this type of thinking disadvantage those who do not have access to adequate information or education

Yes. Listening to Big-L rhetoric, one could be forgiven for thinking that was the point.

Without sacrifices on the part of individuals the advancement of human civilisation would be difficult as conflicting self interest would make it hard for groups to cooperate.

Big-Ls maintain that groups could cooperate by voluntary efforts, based on the rational recognition of the fact that such cooperation served their interests as well. The mental gymnastics they go through to avoid acknowledging that "rational recognition" has no relationship to the way most people make most decisions, and to avoid drawing the connection between their proposal and the social contract concept while leads to states which they whine incessantly about, are truly breathtaking.

From what I can understand of libertarianism it strives to "maximize individual liberty". Is the maximising individual liberty intended to facilitate collective human prosperity? Or is maximising individual liberty the "end goal" (for lack of better terminology) in itself?

If libertarianist wish to enhance collective human prosperity through acting in their own self interest I see the distinction between self interest and enlightened self interest as stated by Steve Bowen to be of integral importance. To what extent is an individual meant to be able to gauge what is in their best interest? How is an individual with limited education and knowledge meant to know the many possible consequences of their actions? A decision made in self interest could easily actually lead to consequences NOT in the interests of said person if they are not properly informed even if it is in some convoluted "Butterfly Effect" kind of way. Would this type of thinking disadvantage those who do not have access to adequate information or education given that there would be no better informed authority which they could use to guide their decision making? Is this something where everything varies by degree? Ideally I guess the individual would love to be omniscient.

With the goal of increasing human prosperity in mind I have always thought that there is some kind of interdependence between "individual liberty" and authority/government. Without sacrifices on the part of individuals the advancement of human civilisation would be difficult as conflicting self interest would make it hard for groups to cooperate. I can see it argued that if a long-term goal outweighed the short term sacrifice of the individual then the sacrifice itself would be seen as in the best interests. It is then highly subjective as to what is classified as "best interests" as it depends on the individuals own emphasis.

Second, using...pigeon-holes can often break down into a "framing" argument where people seek "victory by definition"

they are statists (i.e., fascists)!

I see what you mean.

Second, using the liberal, conservative, statist, libertarian (and even moderate) pigeon-holes can often break down into a "framing" argument where people seek "victory by definition" as a previous poster accurately noted. If you believe that Govt. is too big and too intrusive both socially and fiscally then you lean libertarian. We can quibble endlessly about roads and pollution controls (which libertarians do amongst themselves) but if your fear of private roads is making you support so-called liberals or conservatives (especially neo-conservatives) then you need to look closely at who those people really are based on their behaviors--they are statists (i.e., fascists)! If you don't believe this then do some research on the growth in Govt spending over the last 100 years. It doesn't matter who is in power they all add to size of Govt. (yes, even Reagan). They all have their reasons--wars on drugs, poverty, terrorism, individualism, etc. They all make you afraid not to vote for them because the other person is even worse. Did republicans cut spending when they could have--hell no. Have democrats gotten rid of victimless crimes when they had the chance--hell no. I repeat, if your fear of the most extreme libertarian views is making you support statism then you are playing into the fear mongering of the politicians.

Finally, if we're lucky and we do get to the point where we can start arguing about the extent that private property rights can solve the commons dilemma then there are multiple viable options including but not limited to peer pressure, social ostracism, boycotts, preemptive contracts, trespass laws, lawsuits, arbitration & mediation, eduction (including outright propaganda), democracy (i.e., majority vote), fuzzy logic voting (not to be confused with "fuzzy math"), pollution credit markets (not to be confused with Cap and Trade), new technologies, volunteering (i.e., somebody pollutes and I volunteer to clean it up) and 100 other options that nobody has thought of yet. At a minimum it seems that we should default to freedom and voluntary interaction between people before we break out the guns and treat each other like social misfits.

If nothing else, remember that Govt is force and it should only be brought into play where you are comfortable using force to get your way (e.g., to save a sick child, to protect your family from violence, etc.). People may differ on where they believe force is appropriate but the sooner we understand that force (i.e., Govt) should be kept to an absolute minimum, the better off we will be. If you're using taxes to build a football stadium you are essentially saying that your willing to put a gun to your neighbors head for that stadium. If your telling the cancer patient that he can't smoke a joint to ease his pain, you are putting a gun to their head to enforce your morality.

Finally, in response to many comments above, I'll be blunt.
Taxes = theft (you can argue about whether the theft was justified but it is theft).
Mandatory national service = slavery (again, you may justify it but it is slavery).

"Necessary evil" is an oxymoron in the context of natural law. Under natural law theory, what is "good" is determined by observing human nature and the laws of our universe. If a given "means" does not comport with those things, then it is doomed to failure, both in terms of accomplishing intermediate goals (e.g., Will throwing this stone break your window?) and in terms of accomplishing more important goals (e.g., Will it make me happy?).

Taxes cannot be both necessary and evil, unless the Universe is indifferent to contradiction.

The phrase "necessary evil" is used most often by "big government" advocates. It is akin to the expression, "The ends justify the means." In one sense, it is true that one must always employ means to achieve ends, and the means have no other purpose than to achieve those ends. But at least two questions are involved in evaluating the proper means. First, will the means actually achieve the desired ends, e.g., will taxes increase government revenues? Secondly, will the means (though achieving the desired end) be destructive of some other, possibly more fundamental or important end or value, e.g., one's right to be secure in his property?

It is the second question which most "big government" apologists ignore. But, "You can't fool Mother Nature." I suppose that's why leftists so often have to explain, "At least our hearts were in the right place."

Larry Kulp

Dean is on the right track. I think he is rejecting the whole idea of there even being a "commons." On the other side of the coin, he does not seem convinced that even fleeting "ownership" of moving, frangible resources is a viable concept either. (This would be unlike, say, compressed air in a scuba tank, which obviously can be owned.)

I believe that Dean, correct me if I'm wrong, views pollution as being a trespass or nuisance. In other words, pollution aggressively interferes with the use and enjoyment of property which IS owned.

If this view is correct, and I believe it is, then the "no government" variety of libertariansm would be unable to stop such aggression in many, if not most cases, although doing so would be entirely consistent with--if not outright required by--libertarian concepts of justice. You have victims, and you have perpetrators, but you would have no practical remedies. Can you imagine some Joe Bloke trying to join every factory owner, as a joint tortfeasor, in a trespass or nuisance lawsuit? He'd have to sue all or most of them, because only in the aggregate do they cause appreciable damage? Just getting them all served with a summons would cost millions of dollars.

It seems clear that laws against pollution are ethically proper in a libertarian society, and it seems equally clear, from the standpoint of the feasibility of enforcement, that only an institution having wide constituency and jurisdiction, as well as considerable power, could protect Joe Bloke from such aggression.

Although we can engage in a lot of philosophical hair-splitting (e.g., must or should such a government be a monopoly supported by coerced taxation, could it be a natural monopoly supported by voluntary contributions, could it be a system of competing law enforcement agencies bound together in a volutary compact, must the government be appointed as an agent of the victims, etc., etc., etc.)--one thing is certain. The "no-governmment" version of libertarianism cannot do the job here.

Larry

And Max seems to be proposing anarchist utopianism.

Chief among these is the concept of environmental health. We cannot partition the environment. We all drink the same water; we all breathe the same air. Rivers, streams, aquifers and oceans cross property lines, and pollutants entering the water anywhere on the planet can cause problems almost anywhere else.

Including surely, locally. If I am your hypothetical polluter I will also become a victim of that pollution (eventually). Self interest and enlightened self interest are two fundementally different positions

I may be in the minority among libertarians in that I do not think that government is a necessary evil to be distrusted and reviled. I think government is a noble and moral human institution when it is bound by proper restrictions and set to perform its proper functions.