Kiwi Pundit has picked up the baton with Richard with whom I have had various disagreements on the question of freedom both thick and thin, most recently here and here. As I've said before, Richard's criticisms of libertarianism are more in the nature of caricature than they are analysis, so it surprises me that KP calls them "excellent." But there you go.
Kiwi Pundit says in passing that my 'pure version' of libertarianism is 'unsound,' and that liberals like him are more practical: unlike libertarians, liberals he says are "willing to give up some of our liberty in order to make a better society" (as if giving up a little liberty would do that). But he makes some interesting points nonetheless in response to Richard, particularly on the relationship between slavery and so-called substantive freedom.
Under Richard's notion of 'substantive freedom,' says KP, "If a slave-owner were to offer significant benefits to his slaves such as healthcare, education for your kids,... a luxurious villa with a jacuzzi and 32 inch flat screen TV, then you are free, despite the fact you have to go out every day and pick cotton or face serious punishment."
You can see with that example why socialists like the concept of 'substantive freedom' since it demolishes the idea of real freedom in favour of a little slavery (or a lot, depending on your view). As such it is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept, a "term designed to replace or obliterate some legitimate concept."
You can see too from his example that when liberals say they are "willing to give up some of [their] liberty in order to make a better society" that they are really saying is that a little slavery is what makes a better society. Now that's pretty unsound, I would say. Basically it means the liberals are just arguing with the socialists as to the degree of slavery necessary to make the 'better society.'
But I digress. Read KP's whole thing here.