The response was quite unworthy of a forum alleging intellectual discussion.
It is ironic.
Libertarians say "we have no desire to take from you what is yours" and are called "greedy". Libertarians say "we have no desire to run your life for you" and are called "arrogant".
Orwell would be proud of modern political debate because it so closely mirror the doublespeak he wrote about in 1984. Libertarians are constantly accused of saying the exact opposite of what libertarians actually are saying.
How else could someone accuse a libertarian of selfisheness for saying "I have no desire to take your money or that of your descendants"? It makes no intellectual sense, but the desire to deficit spend for wealth redistrubution and continue enslaving future generations in programs such as Social Security is considered altruistic. A libertarian is willing to say "look, we'll continue funding it for you, and sacrifice our own ability to receive payment, if you will allow our own kids to not have to pay us. We have no desire to rob our own children for our own benefit, we desire to do our best for them." That is considered selfish and greedy.
What kind of doublethink does it take to respond to a libertarian saying "I can't tell you how to live your life. Nobody can tell you how you should live your life. It's up to you." by accusing that libertarian of having profound arrogance? What is more arrogant, to leave others alone or to insist that one does indeed posess the knowledge necessary to run the lives of others?
Accusations such as these are not meant to be believed. They are projections, trying to convince the credulous that the one making the accusation is not the one actually guilty of the accusation. It is useful to confuse and distract, to ensure as C. S Lewis described, people are bailing out the water furiously when the ship is on fire, but spraying water everywhere when the ship is flooding.