No. To understand our needs we must be free. If others have determined what our needs are, we have been denied that which fundamentally separates us from the animal kingdom: the power to reason. Without reason, the State can own us, as anyone can own anything that follows blindly. Libertarianism is that unique social ideal that states that only the individual may possess themselves: literally, 'self-possession'. And, in possessing the self, they may do whatsoever they wish with it as long as - and this is a fundamental and essential caveat - they do not injure others. Libertarianism takes upon itself more truly than any other system the 'do unto others' motif. Rather than being the hotbed of drugs and promiscuous vice that so many would wish to portray it as, liberty as conceived by libertarians comes with a heavy price tag. For to be moral not because the State says so but because the basis of one's convictions rests on the belief that each and every person has the innate right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is surprisingly difficult.
Let us examine, for instance, the charge that all libertarians are interested in is legalising drugs. Now, consider whether it is better not to take drugs because the State says so, or because one has worked logically through all the ramifications of drug-taking. One must consider the effect that drug-taking has upon their own finances, upon their family, upon their health and upon their psyche. They must consider what acts they may perform, based upon the experiences of other drug users, when under the influence of certain narcotics and whether they may endanger another's liberty or property. They must consider whether they will be able to hold down their job; what the effect may have upon their friendships; whether it will put a strain upon their family; whether, if they are a parent, they wish their children to witness them in a state of artificially induced euphoria; what will happen in a financial context if they decide to rid themselves of an addiction; how and when they can go into society when using drugs or quitting them; and whether their health or sanity may be irreparably damaged through either one time or long term exposure to their narcotic of choice. Now, if they have carefully and logically assessed all the factors involved in drug-taking and decide that it is not worth the risk, they should be able to make that decision; similarly, if they believe that they are responsible enough an individual to be able to adequately handle the consequences, they should be able to make that decision also.
Drug-taking is merely one example. There are hundreds of others; hundreds of other little denied opportunities that we never consider. For we have become morally lazy and ethically inept. If a State puts everything into place for us, and legislates for every manifestation of human behaviour, there is little for us to consider except that such and such is 'not allowed'. We are obediently, meekly herded like sheep, surrounded by warning notices at every stage, told that we must think like this or aspire to that or act in such a way as to make us 'good' citizens. But one cannot be 'good' if one has not the freedom to decide upon what goodness entails. And it is no accident that those living in over-developed and over-intrusive states have the highest levels of depression, alcoholism, violence and suicide. Being forced into artificially constructed 'normal' behaviour is, essentially, insane. As Eric Fromm has it, 'Mental health is characterized by the ability to love and create, by the emergence from incestuous ties to clan and soil, by a sense of identity based on one's experience of self as the subject and agent of one's powers, by the grasp of reality inside and outside of ourselves, that is, by the development of objectivity and reason.'