From The American Conservative:
    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/ [amconmag.com]
"""
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
    The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.
"""

There are other aspects of a good life beyond those, like community.

Markets have all sorts of problems:
* systemic risks of collapse, especially from pyramid schemes involving debt
* negative externalities like pollution are paid by society
* positive externalities like global health are ignored in product design
* money tends to get centralized, as it takes money to make money
* those with a lot of money set standards to benefit themselves
* competition can be very wasteful if people otherwise agree on goals
* preparing and fighting war is profitable
* as above, human labor is needed less and less for production
* money tends to corrupt the political process
* the market doesn't hear the needs of people with money, so people can starve or sicken amidst physical plenty
* extrinsic security and planned obsolescence may be more profitable than intrinsic security and durable goods
* money distorts information flows about news
* money corrupts the medical decision making process (conflict of interest)
* money corrupts academia (Kept University)

There are probably others. :-)

Sometimes, market processes are the best we can use. But we need to be aware of where they go wrong. The USA has been greatly damaged over the last few decades by "market fundamentalism". Markets may be a great way to ration scarce goods if everyone has some ration units to pay with, giving everyone a right to some share of the industrial commons. But, as we have already seen globally, when the market does not need people's labor like in Africa, or the market is run by organizations so powerful they don't have to pay much for labor, then things can go badly.

Markets and the fear of starvation or the fear of looking bad socially or the desire to get ahead of everyone else materially may motivate some people to do some disagreeable jobs. But we now have the technology to rethink most jobs to make them more agreeable, or to eliminate them entirely if they are unpleasant to everyone (like by using robotics or better design). Ultimately, the income-through-jobs link is breaking as predicted here:
    http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]
and that means rethinking markets and even the nature of work itself:
    http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html [whywork.org]

Right now, consider:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSTRE59M3CT20091023 [reuters.com]
"""
For every open construction job in America, there are more than 20 people lining up to apply. ...
Jeff Switalski, 40, a pipefitter in Chicago, is feeling the weight. He has been out of work for months.
    "I don't know what I'll do. Retraining? What am I going to be, a mall cop? Computing? They got a million guys waiting to get back into those jobs," he said.
    The American working class has been taking it on the chin for decades, with wages stagnating or falling as manufacturing jobs went overseas and union membership fell.
"""

We can hope to make markets work for us, not be slaves to them. But for the last thirty years, markets have not been working well for most people in the USA, with real incomes stagnant and other expenses (like health care and college) rising, even as industrial productivity has doubled or tripled. The profits just went to those at the top.
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402 [conceptualguerilla.com]
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47 [conceptualguerilla.com]

Beyond free software like Drupal, take a look at this video and tell me almost any blue collar factory work is safe in the next two decades:
    "High-Speed Robot Hand Demonstrates Dexterity and Skillful Manipulation"
  http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation [hizook.com]

Sure, there may be some higher skilled jobs for a time, but many people in the USA would not be happy in them or do a good job in them, and in any case, there will be intense competition for them, driving wages down.

Cars will soon be driving themselves more and more -- what does that mean to every blue collar job as a trucker or operating heavy equipment? Many white collar jobs have gone overseas, but eventually it will just be cheaper to use computers to do them than Indians. And within twenty years, a 3D printer will be like having "China on your desktop".
    http://www.terry.ubc.ca/index.php/2009/07/14/a-china-on-your-desktop-open-source-manufacturing/ [terry.ubc.ca]

Our entire labor-based economy begins to make no sense under those conditions. One can talk about the evils of capitalism, but it will be a lot more evil if nobody but those with capital (owning the robots and controlling the land) has money to buy anything. The scarcity mythology underpinning our way of life is falling apart as robots and better design and better energy production make global abundance possible. What lies ahead is a good thing to think about. Maybe markets will still be a part of that. But think deeply about how markets can work when not much human labor is needed.

Otherwise, this may be what we get (if we are lucky):
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna4.htm [marshallbrain.com]
"""
As the robots took over in the workplace, the number of welfare recipients grew rapidly. Manna replaced tens of millions of minimum wage workers with robots, and terrafoam housing became the warehouse of choice for them. Terrafoam buildings were not pretty, but they were incredibly inexpensive to build and were designed for maximum occupancy. They clustered the buildings on trash land well away from urban centers so no one had to look at them. It was a lot like an old-style college dorm. Each person got a 5 foot by 10 foot room with a bed and a TV -- the world's best pacifier. During the day the bed was a couch and people sat on the bedspread, which also served as a sheet and the blanket. At night the bed was a bed. When I arrived they had just started putting in bunk beds to double the number of people in each building. Burt was not excited to see me when I arrived -- he had had a private room for 10 years, and my arrival was the end of that. At least he was polite about it.
"""

We can't build a 21st century by using the political ideology of the 19th century; even if it worked back then, it is questionable now. But so many of our social institutions are stuck in the old paradigms, using the technologies of abundance (computers, robotics, genetic engineering, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, social networks, and so on) to instead create artificial scarcity. We need to move beyond those old ways of thinking. You obviously like nuclear energy, and it is true the same trends that are making renewables better also show promise for improving the safety of nuclear energy.
    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ [hyperionpo...ration.com]
But consider what Einstein said: "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." One could say the same thing about robotics, nanotech, computers, AI, biotech, and so on.

A related sci-fi story by James P. Hogan from 1982 about the clash of the old scarcity world view and a new abundance world view:
    "Voyage From Yesteryear"
    http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary [jamesphogan.com]