Since the beginning, libertarians have been critical of politicians. After 200+ years, what has that gotten us?
I saw a meme today with an older couple, followed by their 8 offspring, then 34 grand children, all shining gloriously in the sunlight of each others' company.
That could be libertarians, with a new generation every 25-30 years, at relatively no cost and tremendous upside personally.
We shouldn't badger people with soul-destroying, repetitive horrors going on thousands of miles away that they have no control over. It's not as brave or edgy as libertarians seem to think it is, which is why they're all comfortably on twitter patting each others' backs and pounding their chests in counterfeit glory.
We could have a monopoly on the next generation's great inventors, entrepreneurs, technologists, independent thinkers, negotiators, activists, and lobbyists. Which way, libertarians?
Spending time with family, creating / learning / doing productive stuff are all things we should be doing and help not only our personal wellbeing but advance the ideas and spirit of liberty.
I disagree with your characterization of the anti war movement however. Politicians listen to their constituents to the extent that they want to get reelected, and if an issue is so unpopular with the people it will affect the decision making process. Strong anti war sentiment helped end the Vietnam war, Afghanistan, and kept us from escalating in Iran.
Rather than "badgering" people or "patting each other's backs", when I see hundreds of thousands of children starving in Yemen and dying from cholera and other preventable diseases I am disgusted and feel compelled to speak out.
It's your life though, you do you.
How much of the anti war movement focuses on bringing free market principles and peaceful child raising to Yemen?
Is there any responsibility for Yemeni people or is it all up to western people?
It doesn't seem sustainable to lecture amoral people in control of an empire that they shouldn't do this or that.