system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that much of what Libertarians believe to be true is malarkey. It is based on the unsubstantiated premise that all government is evil. CMV

**Edit**: I awarded a delta already because I realized that my whole post was broad, unfalsifiable, and failed to actually accurately explain what I believe anyway. I posted this on a whim and now I'm wishing I had put more thought into it before posting. It has prompted some cool conversations that I would love to continue, but I am currently quite busy. I will respond in due time. 

I have a friend in my new apartment that is an avid libertarian. To be clear, I read the sidebar and am not asking you to debate me acting as him. I am asking you to show me where I am wrong so that I can be more confident in our future conversations. I just am hesitant to speak unless I feel confidant that there are no logical fallacies in my beliefs.

I believe that the problem is not big government, but unaccountable government. And that even if we were to reduce to country to anarchy, some power structure would eventually pop up to replace it. I believe that the EPA and FDA are necessary, though in desperate need of reform. And I believe that socialized healthcare, not the unholy chimera we have now, is the most fiscally effective and functional way to allocate healthcare, considering that not dying is the most price inelastic good there is.

He claims to be small l libertarian, but his views typically seem to be very much in line with big L. He is actually quite informed on politics. In many ways, more than me. (I couldn't name many current acting legislators or their policy initiatives. I can follow issues and the current arguments for different opinions. Just not the names or details and other specifics.) And he is much more forceful in our conversations, which he seems to believe need to be debates or arguments. I prefer to hash things out bit by bit more calmly.

For one example of when his arguments are not very cogent, he believes that the FDA and EPA should be completely dismantled and left to states. I tried to explain that without the FDA, we would have the whole ~~snake oil~~ dietary supplements and alternative medicine market masquerading as real science by real doctors who could line their pockets with no repercussions. And that West Virginia legislators are never going to do anything the reduce the efficiency and profitability of mining no matter how much damage to the planet it could prevent. 

After the whole countdown to the debt ceiling, he was upset that his guys didn't hold out longer. "They would have folded if we had just held out longer!" To which I replied that they I think they were holding the government hostage in order to force their minority beliefs onto the majority and that the whole thing has already caused damage to our reputation and financial standing. Regardless of if they are correct, it is the wrong way to approach it. He said that it is perfectly legal, not unlike filibustering, and that a collapse now is better than if we keep spending and collapse later. And while I think that his understanding of government debt is likely confused, I don't think that explaining that would change the fact that it all seems like a big ponsi scheme to me. And I couldn't really argue with him on the filibustering point considering how happy I was when the Texas abortion restrictions were filibustered. 

But reason I enjoy talking to him so much is that he isn't entirely unwilling to change his view like most libertarians I have spoken to, and he frequently presents views I hadn't previously thought of. He is just stubborn. But his abortion views are shifting. And I did get him to admit that broad deregulation would likely necessitate the end of the corporate entity. It isn't that he won't change his mind. He is just stubborn.

I am not a libertarian. CMV.
gpt
Libertarians are just like any other group, in that they have a variety of opinions and specific beliefs.  This can make trying to defend the entire philosophy difficult.
However, one of the common foundations of libertarian belief is the Non-aggression principle.  Broadly stated it is that no one has a right to initiate force against another person, and that it is only this mutual agreement to prohibit aggression that allows humanity to live together in peace.  
The rest of mainstream libertarian thought generally derives from this fundamental belief.   This makes libertarian positions generally pretty easy to predict, but also, very difficult to argue.   Ultimately if the position is derived from non-aggression you will boil your argument down to "The majority has a right to make you do this" vs "The majority has no right to make anyone do anything" .  

Libertarianism is largely a set of logical deductions, which makes arguing almost pointless. Because unless you can attack the assumption (non-aggression is superior to aggression) or frame the debate as a case of aggression (pollution as aggression against the rest of the population) (fraudulent sales as a form of theft) you will never make any progress. 

Where it gets murky is when libertarianism is  used as a synonym for 'constitutionalism" or just a lazy way of being a Republican embarrassed by the brand.   Its recent uptick in exposure has made all number of people call themselves libertarian when their actual beliefs only occasionally line up with Libertarian principles (See Glen Beck, Bill Maher).