The main difference between the libertarian view and the liberal view of world affairs is whether or not government should interfere to help the poor and disadvantaged at the expense of productive members of society. The libertarian view is that the government should only act as a protector of the environment in which business and daily life takes place. The liberal view is that wealth is required for success, and a certain redistribution of wealth is necessary to assure that everyone has an equal chance of success and happiness.
The argument between whether government should redistribute wealth goes back go Karl Marx. In a nutshell, his work taught that if the rich we allowed to exploit the poor, eventually the poor would have so little that they would have to revolt and redistribute wealth with violence. Marx found nothing in a free-market society that suggested it could give every person an equal chance of economic success and happiness.
Much of the liberal ideology is concentrated on somehow giving the disadvantaged of society, whose work supports the rich, an equal chance of happiness. Dworkin advocated greater access to services and opportunities, such as through affirmative action, that could not be gained without former wealth. Sen explained that total progress toward goals needs to be measured by the amount that individuals have gained. If all of the grad students at a university get a raise that pulls them slightly above the poverty level, Sen would say that this is equal to taking a few dozen families who have nothing and setting them up with jobs and wealth to live as the middle class does. It is important to look at how much progress each person has made, rather simply counting them as "problems solved."
Libertarianism believes that it is not fair for some members of society to be forced to give their income to others. Redistribution of wealth does not always bring happiness to the poor, and it defini...