Why do you claim that the libertarian view is every man for himself? Is that how you live your life, or do you help others?
I never said that libertarians were "
every man for himself", I'm a libertarian who believes in justice and stewardship, so why would I say that? I was referring to unfettered capitalism. if you re-read my words you will see that I said this in the context of "
enforcing a level playing field", by which I meant the necessary constraints on capitalism. My point was that only a person who holds the low morality of "
every man for himself" would not want a level playing field. When I wrote "
every man for himself" I didn't intend to imply anything about people helping - or not helping - others. I meant it in the sense of "
each person should do what is best for themselves" and "
Each individual puts their own interests foremost". Which is what powers capitalism, and which I believe is not an appropriate behaviour or philosophy for a Christian.
The level playing field isn't about helping others, it's about others not needing help in the first place.
The problem is, socialist policies produce a citizenry of people unwilling and unable to become productive citizens.
You clearly have no idea what socialism is.
Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron.
Only if you don't understand what a "libertarian" is, or what a "socialist" is, or possibly both.
A libertarian is someone who is profoundly suspicious of hierarchies unless there is some intrinsic merit in them. Also, as
@tulc has already pointed out, historically is left-wing.
A socialist is someone who believes that those who create the wealth should control the wealth. (Traditionally expressed as "the workers should control the means of production", but the principle can be applied much broader.)
So a Libertarian Socialist is someone who believes that the mechanism of wealth creation should be under the control of the wealth creators, in an environment void of any unnecessary hierarchical structures. Nothing paradoxical about that. There is no oxymoron.
I've been a Libertarian for more than twenty years. I know what it is.
I doubt that. I suspect that you have been an Ultra-Conservative Libertarian, aka US Libertarian, for more than twenty years. US Libertarians have twisted the word "libertarian" and made it almost
the exact opposite of what it means elsewhere. Many in the US still use the word correctly, just not those who took the name for their party.
You might also consider that I'm referring to the American Political party. Remember the topic is what party would Jesus most adhere to.
Despite the topic of the thread, this side discussion was about "libertarian principles". I think it only reasonable to assume that we were talking about the correct usage of the word.
Hey, I'm more than happy for the Americans to keep the word "Libertarian" if they really want to. But this means that when the rest of us want to use the word we have to say "libertarian
socialists" just to be clear. But you then saying that it's an oxymoron when we do correctly use the word is really beyond the pale.
Is there any law that doesn't enforce moral behavior? Isn't murder against the law because it's immoral to kill? Isn't theft against the law because it's immoral to steal? There is no way to create a level playing field without oppressing someone. Leveling the playing field often lowers the standard. There are two ways to level the playing field. Make the lower the standard for the best, or lift the lowest up.
Obviously laws against murder and theft aren't overreaching, so are clearly not what I was referring to. Probably a good example of overreaching is banning gay marriage. Regardless of my personal opinions about gay marriage, I don't believe it's the government's role to ban it. If that's too controversial, then another example is the compulsory wearing of motorcycle helmets. If this wasn't law, I would still wear my helmet almost every time I ride, but I don't believe it's the role of the government to compel us to do it.
I don't know if you did it intentionally, but you completely misconstrued what I meant by "
levelling the playing field".
This phrase has nothing to do with standards, or "lifting the lowest up". It has to do with fairness; that all play by the same rules. Capitalism, especially the unfettered laissez-faire capitalism that you seem to prefer, is most unfair all the way to its heart. One thing that US Libertarians seem to conveniently ignore, is that the economic system that they live in is intrinsically flawed. If capitalism was not so deeply unfair, then US Libertarians might be on to a good thing. But because capitalism is flawed it needs larger-than-ideal government to attempt to keep it in check.
Capitalism and only capitalism allows the lowest among us to rise to whatever we desire.
Wow! That reveals so much about where your mind is at. There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. Maybe I'll make it the topic of another post.
Capitalism created that money.
No it didn't. Neither capitalism nor socialism can create wealth. Wealth is created by people doing things (manufacturing, designing, repairing, inventing). People do these things under socialism, communism, capitalism, or whatever. The question is under what political and economic systems is this wealth best distributed. (Hint: Not laissez-faire capitalism.)
Capitalism cannot exist if it isn't unbridled. When capitalism becomes restricted, it becomes fascism, or socialism or communism. When the government allows for private ownership of commerce, but dictates it's operation, that is fascism. When industry is owned by government, it's communism.
The thing is, capitalism is a concept, an abstract, it cannot be good or bad, it's how it's used. Capitalists can be bad, and so we make laws that punish capitalists if they immorally steal or break laws that infringe on other people's rights as described before.
Socialism simply takes capitalism and restricts it to government. To think that would be better would be to conclude that politicians are more honest than other individuals, such as bankers or investors or even you. You can become as rich as you want under capitalism.
You don't seem to understand what any of these things are.
For example: Socialism is about who controls the means of production, it has nothing to do with the role of the government. What you are describing is
authoritarian socialism, but it's the "
authoritarian" part that's the problem, not the "
socialism" part.
Socialism confines power to an even smaller group of people, government.
If you think that, then again: You don't know what socialism is.
Incidentally, government has the power to use force against you, private industry does not.
Actually under the TPP and NAFTA, private industry
can use force against workers and consumers, and even against governments. These agreements are examples of capitalists getting control of governments, instead of the other way around. These agreements are examples of what can happen if capitalism isn't kept under control.
And finally:
Consider social security, it's a socialist concept.
No it isn't! It never has been!
No wonder you think that "libertarian socialist" is an oxymoron; you repeatedly show that you really don't know what socialism is. Maybe you are confusing it with social democracy? Just a guess.
Here's a simple rule of thumb when you want to discuss "Libertarian Principles": you don't get to decide what other libertarians can/can't believe. 
