Robert (all); There never was agreement on ‘being libertarian’. Only an attempt

Robert (all);

There never was agreement on ‘being libertarian’. Only an attempt to monopolize the libertarian identity by rothbardianism.

And that was part of the ‘deception’. The purpose of using the sophistry of ‘non-aggression’ in the absence of defining ‘aggression against what’ allowed the use of the feminine > Abrahamic > Marxist use of suggestion. Meaning the ‘libertarian’ could self-identify with whatever arbitrary set of presumptions he could choose.

1. There was an attempt by the classical liberals to use the term. (Correctly: rule of law of property and tort which produced the common good, which in turn allowed us to produce commons, that decreased costs of everything for all.)

2. There was an attempt by the Rothbardians to use the term. (Incorrectly. Libertines, prohibiting investment in commons).

3. There was an attempt by the anarchists to use the term (incorrectly. libertines, prohibiting commons whether behavioral, institutional, or material.)

And so there is a reason why the anglo terms were “legal” not “philosophical”:

a) Inter-Group Sovereignty reciprocal insurance of self-determination by self-determined means;

b) Group Liberty (reciprocal insurance of freedom of local law and custom);

c) Personal Freedom (reciprocal insurance of freedom of self-determination by self-determined means.)

d) And ‘unfreedom’ (serfdom, slavery, imprisonment, death for those who are unwilling and unable to reciprocally insure freedom, liberty, and sovereignty.

Sovereignty(Self Determination) = reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means by sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, duty to commons before self, contract before self, truth before face, limiting us to the positive market for cooperation, or the negative duel, court, and war for the resolution of differences

Reciprocity(non-aggression) = Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and with the limits of reversibility and restitutabilty.

Freedom(Responsibility) = acceptance of the responsibility for insurance of one’s and others’ sovereignty in demonstrated interests, and reciprocity in display word and deed.

Demonstrated Interests = Demonstrated Interests include the Existential (Natural), Obtained(Invested for privatization), and Common(invested for commons)

2. Demonstrated Interests, (Demonstrated Property, “Property-In-Toto”): The set of that which man acts, or forgoes opportunities for action, (satisfaction) to acquire, preserve, accumulate, use and consume.

Given;

One bears costs of existing and persisting (Natural Interest).
One bears costs of acting (Demonstrated Action).
One bears costs of acquiring goods, services, information, opportunity by action or forgone opportunity for action.(Demonstrated Cost)
One demonstrates an interest by bearing a cost on that which no other has born a cost to demonstrate an interest (Demonstrated Interest).
One consents to a portfolio of reciprocally insured property (normative property interest) with others.
One consents or is forced to comply with an institutional means of reciprocally insuring property with others (title interest).

Therefore;

Demonstrated interest without imposing upon others demonstrated interests is a fact.
a) Possession is a fact.
b) Property requires an agreement.
c) Property rights require an institutional means of enforcement.

Now, how many ‘libertarians’ claim their ethics satisfies that criterion? Almost none. Likely none.

Do you know why? The origin of the feminine mind is the evasion of responsibility. The origin of Rothbardian ethics is the feminine evasion of responsibility for the commons.

That’s not moral.
That’s cowardice, criminality, and immorality, hiding under the feminine pretense of innocence.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon