I would by no means say I'm a socialist, but I guess people with views such as yours tend to see everything in monochrome. Can't do anything about that sorry. In any case, libertarianism shouldn't defend itself against socialism, as it faces stronger and far more dangerous opposition from utilitarianism and liberal equality (not to mention citizenship theory). Socialism is an obsolete political philosophy.
---------------
Whilst it is true very few people rely on inheritance, it is also worth noticing you not only inherit money. You inherit social capital in the form of your parents and their level of education. This in turn will determine their expectations of you.
---------------
Yes, the poor do place a value on their 'liberties' but whereas they are free to walk the streets of Manchester, they are not 'free' to hire a barrister if they so choose, or to pay for private health care to get their hip replaced in a week. We are all equal, only some more equal than others.
-------------------
Second point
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course it would be great if people donated to their communities and did nice things for the world. The fact of the matter is that people in Britain need to be given tax incentives to give to charity. Sad but true.
More about taxes:
Economics is the science of incentives, most of which work through taxes. For instance, if a government wants to encourage (or disencourage) the counsumption of a good they can simpy tax or subsidise accordingly. This is another reason why taxes work and are used all around the world. A state such as ours can't MAKE you stop smoking but it can give you good reasons not to. Taxes serve a social role in regulating the consumption of merit and demerit goods.
It is not simply about taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. Your analysis of taxing is simplistic and I can assure you there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
---------------
You also say that people working for you are free to do what they want, and that they can go somewhere else if they want. This brings us back to liberties and freedoms. Although we may (in theory) enjoy the same rights, people with different ammounts of wealth and disposable income (not to mention social capital) are able to exercise their rights to a greater or lesser extent.
Choosing from one job to another is not as easy as choosing whether to go to Paris or Milan for the summer. You are no longer exercising your right to choose when you have only one option.
Also, you failed to address the point about what would happen to education, health and security in a libertarian society. I said libertarianism would result in anarchy. It simply wouldn't work.
Tell me: who would pay for roads and street lighting.
Say YOU pay for street lighting on your own street. How do you prevent other people from benefiting from something like this.
People have thought of these problems and solved them hundreds of years ago so you don't have to. I can understand why it is an atractive idea for someone with more resources than the average person, but I repeat, it is unrealistic even to dream of putting it into practice.
--------
I would like to add that I do indeed understand libertarianism as defined by academic work written on the subject. Not only that, I am aware of criticisms leveled against it by other schools of thought. I am part of the debate you see, I'm not an easily impressed student who speaks from the gut and not from the brain. Do a bit more reading, it will do you good and you will find that trying to defend libertarianism on rational grounds is like trying to prove the existence of God. You will stumble with countless contradictions and you will find that at the core of your ideas there are simply emotions and no substance.