Ah yes, the old freedom == social darwinism cliche.

That's not what I said. 'Social darwinism' is inevitable with any living organism, and will simply occur from decisions made by individuals. That's why I've condoned before a more intelligent design of society rather than short term instinct based markets. Libertarians have at the base of their argument that no such plan is possible, seemingly because the only organization that can occur is due to individuals making decisions based on their point of view. However this disregards all the decisions companies make when making products and services that shape what consumers feel their options are, like Apple curating their app store or google removing a feature from google chrome. This means simply by having a lot of status already, the defaults chosen by big companies will shape the underlying structures of society. But these can be designed better. Watch for example 'The century of the self' by adam curtis to see an example, even though it is biased it can show the irrational and emotional basis for todays consumerism.

I think you can have BOTH freedom AND design, if the design isn't made based on short term interest and narrow points of views. It's conceivable. I can get into more details if needed, it's not the zeitgeist movement or anything. Basically the options people feel they have, the technology that society creates and the culture decides who has access to a good life and who doesn't (economic and social wise). It's not really something that an individual can overcome by himself and so that's why there is so much despair right now. That's my main dispute with libertarianism - the system, not the ideal