"Libertarianism, for want of a better defining word, demands nothing of people except that they are not permitted to enslave others for their needs. Socialism, for want of a better defining word, demands that people must be enslaved to other people's needs, or to the State."

You just don't get it do you, Tom. You don't get to make the definitions and then criticize others because they don't agree with them.

What if I told you socialism was a philosophy that simply asked that all communal human actions should be managed as much as possible by consent and consultation of all those affected by them. And that libertarianism was a fantasy that cannot exist in a global technical society that has to be highly organized or it cannot function at all. In fact, it can't survive in any realistic human community of competing interests and cooperating individuals. A libertarian is just an anarchist who owns property.

If you don't like my definitions you are certainly entitled to reject them.
I certainly can't expect that you accept them unquestioningly just because that is what I believe. My believing them don't make them so, even if I do have a right to believe them if I choose. You are under no obligation to believe them, either. Is that too unreasonable a standard to apply to your position?

"demands", "enslave", "other peoples's needs", "the state", these are emotionally charged, negatively loaded words. Of course, the way you defined it nobody in his right mind would want to be anything but a libertarian. You've rigged them that way. And yes, I have stopped beating my wife.