A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence.
What? In a libertarian system, you could close your shop any darn time you please. And your second example would be called theft or charity, depending on the coercion of the socialist.

It's like you don't understand what libertarianism is; freedom to act so long as you don't violate another person's rights. A libertarian ideology isn't so much 'upheld' as no ideology is enforced on the people.

In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life.
What? Why? You can be religious and libertarian at the same time.
It is not, it is a belief system based on several very great assumptions, that is then effectively forced onto society above all other belief systems.
Um, where? Show me this libertarian state.

It takes the beliefs of some individuals, and constructs a framework for society around them, and as such is no more inherently 'liberating' than Wahibism. I am not arguing against libertarianism, I just want people to admit to it being what it is.
Good grief. Here's why it's liberating; because you can do what you want so long as you don't overrun the rights of others. You can't do that in Saudi Arabia, and your criteria would apply to any form of government. I'll admit nothing to such silliness.

CR