only about declaring ideals not necessarily being practical?
My impression is that libertarians always talk about right/wrong things to do in terms of coercion, personal freedom rather than working/not working things in a real society.
And when something doesn't work in reality - they wash their hands. For instance environmental concern cannot be entrusted to individuals and environment is, by definition our common limited irreversible resource, then libertarians just deny existence of such problem. Simply because environmental efforts cannot possibly be fitted into libertarianism. And this is where they loose connection with reality as it is. They say that rivers and forests should all be made private and then their owner would care about polution. But in reality, whether we like it or not, shrinking rainforests are not private and neither USA nor UK have any control over their property status. And we cannot even see how soon they are going to become private. Perhaps even never.
But libertarians can keep denying that less oxygen is produced and more carbon dioxide is emited. They resort to statistical and political tricks, to pointless discussions about what counted and how often and in what way we should look at the figures. I have no idea whether global warming is hapenning or not, but if it is - libertarian model has nothing to offer here at all simply because environmental concern doesn't fit into its idealistic model.
The best way to allocate limited resources is not to entrust everything to private property and to markets but to arrange pluralistic usage of it. If private property acts toward competition - it works, if it acts against pluralism (in case of monopoly) - it doesn't work.
The problem is not whether to pay taxes or not, whether to spend public money on re-building or not. The question is how to set up a proper truly pluralistic system of public money usage.