Libertarianism is an abstraction, not a scientific observation of the economic machine. It has many true insights but in many cases it assumes a false semse of certainty by ignoring some aspects. For example it ignores chaos theory, which is not surprising since it didn't exist around the times of Rand and Rothbard.

To put it better, libertarianism is a sub discipline of the science of understanding the economic machine. If the machine is too complex to be controlled then it is also too complex to be fully understood. Imagine trying to simulate the actions of every person in the US let alone the world. So one must simplify this into a theory in order to make decisions and in that process something must be lost.

Depending on the accuracy of that model the amount of loss can be trivial or devastating. Ecologies are also machines in which animals and plants interact, much like an economy. It is easy to do nothing and take the view that this is best but because of the complexity it is only a belief that this is the best course.

Micromanaging is not really the goal of socialism, though it can be from bad policy. The purpose of socialism is to avoid catastrophes by safety nets, regulations, standards, etc. To the extent those controls so not do this then they are either irrelevant or harmful to the economy. Welfare can encourage people to be unemployed but giving a safety net and then hounding them to get off it as soon as possible can give a net benefit to everyone. If someone can't get back on their feet they are no good to anyone, except to scare people into not ending up that way.

When people make free choices it is sometimes random sometimes chaotic but below the level of catastrophe. For example freedom implies a random ability to buy what you want and do what you want according to your resources.

In chaos however people shop at a place because it is the only one close enough, buy what they can afford, live where their budget allows so that while technically free most of their decisions are made in a forced manner according to their situation. If you look at the whole population you have this group who can choose and those who have no choice.

For most of the time this makes no difference, those forced by circumstances get by. When chaotic systems approach a crisis this means people get forced into worse and worse choices and brings the system closer to a catastrophe. For example people skimp on medicine to make ends meet and then if there is an epidemic there is a catastrophic outbreak that causes much more damage than if they had the luxury of choosing a wise health plan.

Once this goes into crisis then often the government steps in and spends money to bring the crisis under control, after which people go back to their chaotic choices. The same crisis can be averted if everyone has private insurance for example, the only difference is people who in these forced circumstances don't have insurance create an epidemic that overwhelms even those who do. So chatoic crisis can spill over and damage those parts that are inherently random.

I don't accept there is a slippery slope to socialism, all evidence shows that extreme socialist governments fall in time and moderate ones successfully moderate themselves. The pendulum may swing to one side or the other to find that balance though. Now in the US the pendulum is too far to the right and this is causing crisis and catastrophe to be much worse than they should be. In fact history also shows (e.g. Argentina) that extreme capitalism falls or is moderated too.

A good unemployment safety net that gets people back to work (or else) pays by restricting damage to the whole machine. Recessionary deficits oil the machine while the catastrophic effects of a burst bubble are overcome. Socialised medicine is rarely abused because there's little point in seeing a doctor for any reason but ill health but appropriately run it avoids the catastrophe of epidemics, and also a productive member of society being lost for the often trivial cost of medicine.

Fires are a good example of catastrophe in a forest. You can save a lot by making fire breaks and controlled burning or you can let it burn out. The first keeps more of the forest alive overall. The second means the forest must adapt to periodic catastrophes (like recessions) and go through a painful regrowth. Some would say this is interfering with nature. The inhabitants of the forest though would prefer the fire breaks if they had a choice.