If libertarianism cannot coherently prohibit actions that foreseeably harm non-consenting third parties, it fails on its own internal terms, not merely by external moral standards.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Coherently(as describing how these functions work together): In a way that is logically consistent and doesn't contradict itself.
External moral standards(contrasting with the philosophy's own internal rules): Rules about right and wrong that come from outside a particular philosophy—like general ideas of fairness or human welfare that most people accept.
Internal terms(contrasting with external moral standards that come from outside the philosophy): The standards and values that a philosophy sets for itself, based on its own core beliefs.
Libertarianism(as used in philosophy of free will): The philosophical view that humans have genuine free will—our choices aren't determined by prior causes and we're truly responsible for what we do. (Note: this is different from the political meaning of 'libertarianism.')

Based on where you are in your exploration