“Obviously, the government cannot allow its citizens to starve or children to live on the streets, homeless.”

So we have a libertarian blog arguing for a basic safety net, or essentially Social Security? Does this not then extend to the right to have a decent home, if as you say we can’t have people starving on the street homeless? Where should they live if we cannot guarantee them private housing? Surely you are not arguing for Pruitt-Igoe? If we don’t want people starving then does that not extend to health care — individuals who contract disease through no fault of their own but the natural order of human biology? If we argue against starvation on the street then does not that presuppose entitlement to a basic standard of living free from homelessness, disease, and starvation? Isn’t entitlement a guarantee and should, as civil society, we not make that a social contract in order that it endures beyond the common business cycle and painful recession? Beyond the pursuit of happiness, do we not need this for stability?

Equal access to the market presupposes a solid foundation. Society cannot exist without some degree of entitlement. Even you agree we must not allow citizens to starve. The government plays a role in ensuring this occurs, hence the economic bill of rights. Do you expect private corporations to maximize the utility of those without political capital? Libertarianism assumes all players equal while the disadvantaged should be blamed for their misfortune. Whether disease or broad market failure, this is not true for those absent capacity through no fault of their own.