The reason I found libertarianism interesting was commensurability. That’s all.

The reason I found libertarianism interesting was commensurability. That’s all. When I first heard Hoppe I understood that he combined commensurability with strict construction. I knew something was wrong (and it was – and it took me a very long time to figure out what it was). But I knew that he had in front of him the answer to commensurability. (Even if I would not phrase it correctly at the time.) And that meant the possibility that law, property, and economics could produce a social science.

I call myself a conservative libertarian today out of convenience. But what I mean is a Sovereign. The difference is that I’m not asking permission. I’m taking it. I don’t need incentive to be fair. I need incentive not to kill or enslave and take what I want. And fairness is the only reason not to kill or enslave and take what I want.

Sovereignty either exists in fact or it doesn’t. Liberty only exists by permission – so technically it’s impossible. Freedom is a nice word for a serf that isn’t bound to the land or a craft. There is only one source of what we mean when we say ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’, and that is Sovereignty. And there is only one possible method of producing Sovereignty; a militia of sufficient numbers that an alternative order is impossible.