system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Are libertarian ideas and arguments intellectually honest or philosophically viable?

I would like to start off by saying that I am new to both philosophy and political ideology, so sorry if this is a stupid question. Also, when I say libertarian, I'm speaking of the of the right-wing political theory that has been growing out of the United States rather than the political theories of left anarchism. Basically, my thinking goes a bit like this. I have found that most of the political theories that I have been studying will have some sort of ideological or (more often) some sort of philosophical justification for their arguments. If this is correct, I should be able to look into the philosophical justifications for many of these political ideologies to find if they hold any validity to modern understandings of known reality. My question is not so much "what do you BELIEVE ?" or "What party should I vote for?", but more of an academic inquiry of whether or not the beliefs, interpretations, and world view of this political ideology are philosophically justifiable. Can a person base their opinions off of logic, reason, skepticism, and academic honesty also be a libertarian, or is their some sort of gap inside their arguments? In other words, I'm asking if libertarians are nothing but a bunch of people who don't understand basic logic on some sort of deeper level, and are they promoting a pseudo philosophy. Is their debate about this? Is this too brad of a question? Is this the wrong place for this question? What would be some good reading material to learn more?
gpt
Nozick is considered the best libertarian philosopher. And his work is considered real high quality. So obviously its considered defensible. Whether that makes it correct or the most plausible option is another matter. There's a difference between a plausible defense of something existing and it being the most viable option.