It's an interesting question. I'm not a Libertarian, but I can relate with certain facets of libertarian thinking as it relates to cryptocoin. Morals were naturally selected into existence. That seems to be a common agreeable point among Libertarians. Here's the only problem I see: if natural selection or the invisible hand created it, we can engineer better. To let the invisible hand take on all responsibility is to deny that we have a strength in artificial selection and genetic engineering rather than letting nature take it's course. That being said, even science must submit to the logical process of natural selection as we test every idea and see what visions thrive to bring us new discovery.

So, unlike pure libertarians, I say we need policy and restraint over the things that we know will cause harm. As that applies to flagging, the harm that is worth avoiding is denying niche opinions from being exposed to the public. We need an etiquette that allows for a respectful moron promoting genocide to make their case without being flagged just because their opinion is disagreeable or even violent.

On the bright side, look at what we have here in this community, where such policy for flagging is put through it's own process of natural selection. You should all be relieved as long as the topic is open for discussion. You should be happy that people are debating the line with civility. Do you honestly have anything to worry about given the integrity of these who are the current devs and whales of Steem? If you did, the only sure resolution would be to start your own vision of what this should be and make it a more functional reality than what Steem is becoming. IOW, it's not to say that if you don't like it then you should get out. What I mean is that you should start your own thing when you are convinced that the powers that be can't be reasoned with. Until then, let's keep debating where the line of flagging should be, as we are all seeking to discover it with certainty.