Economy, Morality and Libertarianism

Ayn Rand (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ayn_Rand_(1943_Talbot_portrait).jpg)

A libertarian doesn’t support positive rights. No one can be forced to help. You don’t have to help a person who has fallen down a well. He has no right to be helped. He only has the right to not get pushed down a well. A good person thinks it would be wrong not to help. He is also forced to make the decision to help as much as possible.

Does a libertarian rather take existence as a personal desert survival than as a job helping others? Existence has enough downsides in it without you needing to sacrifice yourself to help others? Helping as many as possible would make life impossible? Not even the lucky ones would be able to enjoy existence anymore? No one would then have it? Should everyone constantly search for suffering people in need of help? A boundary on the amount of helping can’t ever be drawn? Has that already been done though and would the whole matter be a research question? Is there suffering that can be prevented with tax money and work?

Why doesn’t the right wing oppose welfare benefits for layabouts but support the best possible child protection and education no matter what they cost?

What would helping as much as possible mean? The ability to help should not become weaker or endangered. And giving away all the rewards would maybe not be for the best. A culture of rewarding has value. Would the rich stay rich?

Transfer payments do not totally disappear into thin air as inflation. Would that happen to money transferred to bank accounts ’out of nothing’ if demand fell elsewhere due to some other interference than taxation? A transfer payment can sometimes decrease suffering.

What would the best possible life for everyone cost? To what degree could the world be built to completion?