I'm with you on this. What's good for one person may not what is best for everyone. Conservatives and libertarians have always believed themselves to be the center of the universe. From reading what many Libertarians post on agnostics, I'm having a really difficult time differentiating Libertarians from anarchists. Out of all of the countries in the world there is not one single example of a Libertarian Society.

I am a principled utilitarian. So I am not pure ends justify the means, but I do think the moral goal is to maximize the world’s happiness.

When it comes to individual rights and social engineering for society my approach is to maintain the choice, but control the default choice. In other words make the right choice the easy choice.

For example when you get a job it should automatically set you up for retirement savings transfers. Instead of doing the paperwork for signing up for a 401 think you should have to do paperwork to opt out.

With organ donation I would say the default choice is that you are an organ donor and you have to opt out in order to not be.

My high school made every senior apply for the local college - applying for college was the default choice.

Basically do social engineering by manipulating the default choice. You benefit society while still maintaining individual choice.

What's the "greater good" for whom and how do you find that out. Suppose that you were a British Intelligence officer in France working with the French Resistance. They have a prisoner, and they plan to kill him regardless of what he might say. You ask to speak to the prisoner to see if you can gent any useful information out of him. You ask the prisoner some questions and he tells you that he will not answer any of your questions unless you can guarantee that he will be taken to UK as prisoner of war:
Do you lie to him for the greater good?
Or does your integrity stop you from lying?
In fact this happened... the British Officer didn't lie to the prisoner.

Abortion on demand for rape victims and anyone who seriously cannot cope - Not sure of vaccines being mandatory as some people die from having them and we don't seem to know yet how or why that happens so if not foolproof I'd say parents had the last say. I always thought a libertarian position was that property is theft - quite willing to pay my taxes but would like to see the upper class scroungers in my country do away with tax havens etc. I feel upset about the Plymouth Bretheren as my nephew nearly died from being denied hospital care. But I think life is always a risky business and no one can get it right for all of us all the time.

Taxation is theft if it is parasitic. Individual rights are already dismissed by imminent domain...and I would support that if the person compelled to give up a single square-inch of their lawful property--will never again pay federal or state income tax. The state fails to protect rights...then the state loses a tax payer.

Really? So you're fully for the Disenfranchisement of minorities and women?..and qualified freedom of speech?..how very white male of you M'Lord..
You sir are the reason we have Drumpf..by turning a blind eye to the massive voter suppression that the Rethuglican party has executed in many states..ever heard of "Gerrymandering"?.. But you Sir would rather have what? A test for intelligence,? Or perhaps ecocnomic status?..
Again, mighty white male of you..and shame on you..your arrogance is assumes that you have the right to limit a persons right to vote is abhorrent.
As for Freedom of Speech..I have Actively engaged in counter demonstrations against Nazis & White Supremacist here in Boston..I have No problem with people esposing their venon..but They Must be reminded that there are Consequences for that Speech...and if that includes confrontation that, sir, is one of those consequences..

Really? So you're fully for the Disenfranchisement of minorities and women?..and qualified freedom of speech?..how very white male of you M'Lord..
You sir are the reason we have Drumpf..by turning a blind eye to the massive voter suppression that the Rethuglican party has executed in many states..ever heard of "Gerrymandering"?.. But you Sir would rather have what? A test for intelligence,? Or perhaps ecocnomic status?..
Again, mighty white male of you..and shame on you..your arrogance is assumes that you have the right to limit a persons right to vote is abhorrent.
As for Freedom of Speech..I have Actively engaged in counter demonstrations against Nazis & White Supremacist here in Boston..I have No problem with people esposing their venon..but They Must be reminded that there are Consequences for that Speech...and if that includes confrontation that, sir, is one of those consequences..

I'm with you--but I'm an uneducated dolt who couldn't begin to substantiate the argument, so I'll happily defer to the people who know more than I on the subject.

Therein lies a clue to my attitude about it: I accept that I'm not the best person to make certain decisions because I don't adequately understand the issues. In these cases I feel it appropriate to put my trust in those who do know better than me what's good for me. I don't think having to figure out everything on my own would be good for me.

For the greater good.

Not sure why libertarians would think taxation is theft, but how about the opposite - universal benefits. Anything you earn over lets say one million per year and any profits from large corporations goes directly to the government as tax and is spent on infrastructure, health and education. Any surplus pays for universal basic income.

If the health of the population is at risk, the matter should not be left to individual choice -- EVER!

I agree with your basic point, to a point. The tricky part is defining "greater good." There have been problems with imminent domain, which is claimed to be for societal good. Often there is vested business profit motive steering those claims. Whoever gets to set societal priorities gets to define "greater good," it seems.