This essay presents liberal egalitarian criticisms of the hard Lockean libertarian doctrine articulated by Robert Nozick and of softer versions of libertarianism that weaken some of its claims. Here liberal egalitarians are identified as writers who in one way or another affirm equal opportunity for political influence, equality of flourishing (construed either as well-being or resources), and equal opportunity for competitive success. A core liberal egalitarian criticism of libertarianism targets its insistence that the basic enforceable moral duties that we owe to others are all negative duties to refrain from harming or interfering with others and include no positive duties to provide positive assistance to others, especially the worse off. Also objectionable is the libertarian conception of self-ownership. Rejecting it, one finds the libertarian justification of private ownership does not get off the ground. In contrast, the liberal egalitarian idea of ownership has a stewardship component, involving a duty to preserve and use productively. This stewardship idea applies also to the individual’s ownership of herself, so the libertarian rights to commit suicide at will and to sell oneself into slavery are undermined. The hard libertarian affirms natural individual moral rights that hold come what may, whatever the consequences—another mistake as the liberal egalitarian views these matters. Soft libertarian positions weaken some of these hard libertarian commitments just described. This is a good thing as far as it goes, but still leaves the soft libertarian advocating ideas that are wrong at the core.