The Great Libertarian Inconsistency

Libertarians pride themselves on their consistency, but how consistent are they?

They believe that the state should not "initiate force" (their terminology) except to prevent others from doing so in a way that directly violates the negative rights (rights to be left alone such as not being robbed or killed) of others. They do not support using coercion to benefit third parties (e.g., the welfare state) or in using force to stop actions that may indirectly harm third parties (e.g., libertarians support drug legalization regardless of what harms may result indirectly to third parties from licit cocaine use).

However, libertarians support the use of law enforcement to protect individuals from other individuals that may directly violate their right to be left alone. Such law enforcement requires taxes, which are coercive.

Libertarians argue that indirect third-party harm (e.g., resulting from a lack of safety regulations) or the poverty of others (e.g., resulting in part from a lack of welfare programs) are not the responsibility of individuals.

But then, why is it my responsibility to pay the necessary taxes to prevent your house being robbed, but not my responsibility to pay taxes so someone can have necessary medical care? I'm no more directly involved in the case of a third-party being robbed than I am in the case of someone suffering due to a lack of necessities.

The only consistent libertarians on this matter have been anarchist libertarians.

Libertarians must also choose between their support of private property rights with freedom of contract on one hand and their limited conception of the state on the other when it's the case that the state gradually grows in size and scope via private property and freedom of contract. If private property owners can control what others do on their property, then why can't the state of a national territory control what others do within it's boundaries if that state is the result of freedom of contract and private ownership?

For example, large landowners may voluntarily incorporate their land, and then later, via contractual agreements, allow tenants to live on their land provided they pay rent (taxes) and then vote on various policies affecting the land's management.