ITS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY ‘WE’RE ALL THICK LIBERTARIANS’ It’s not enough to say that

ITS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY ‘WE’RE ALL THICK LIBERTARIANS’

It’s not enough to say that in the end we’re all ‘thick’ libertarians. That’s not honest. The ‘thin’ libertarians are wrong, and harmful to the cause of liberty. They’ve had 30+ years to test their theory, and it’s a demonstrated failure. It is a failure because it’s an unethical and immoral basis for cooperation in a polity.

So it’s not enough to say ‘we’re all thick. The purpose of thick libertarianism is to acknowledge the failure of thin “rothbardian” libertarianism. Not to expand it. Not to critique it. But to openly state that it is an unethical and immoral failure in both theory and practice.

Now, the criticism that ‘thick’ libertarians haven’t any answers is true. But having a WRONG answer (rothbardian ‘thin’ libertarianism) and having no answer yet are two different things.

Thin ‘rothbardian’ libertarianism is false. Thick Left-libertarianism is not yet articulated as more than an intuitive and non-rational supposition. Thick right- libertarianism is at least part of an answer. thick Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism is the entire answer. But AEL is not for free riders. It says we must acquire liberty through direct action by insuring the property rights of all other property owners.

A lot of libertarians are trying to find a way to justify their claims for liberty at zero cost to themselves. That wont work. It hasn’t worked. Aristocratic Egalitarianism states that we must obtain our insurance against violations of our property by entering into an insurance contract with others, to employ organized violence against any and all transgressors and usurpers.

No magical, supernatural or fantasy origins for rights are necessary.