Curt Doolittle please forgive my intrusion today but I wonder if I accidentally stumbled upon your reason for venturing into the libertarian realm in your evolution, followed by disaffection.
It has to do, I’m convinced at the moment, with your sympathy with the elegance of the human mind; the human mind’s nature is either expressed or frustrated; when fulfilled it creates an respected OBSERVANCE of the commons.
Mises and Rothbard cannot abide such observance, we note, since the game they actually play was something entirely different. This can only frustrate true human expression, as your own experience and venturing there tells.
I derive these conclusions after composing this argument against our anarchist’s premise (as a morning comment):
“It’s been found that when young children use their imagination to invent a game to play together, as they often do, they will not first lay out all the rules of the game in a comprehensive way or by logical order. Yet by observing them we know they do formulate and adhere to rules and, further, reciprocate against players who offend those rules: for the sake of fair play.
It’s not until their minds mature that they can identify and articulate rules and principles in a precise manner.
What might this psychological/ neurological development tell us?
Our human psyche is hardwired to identify and articulate rules and principles. But omnipresent is our innate sense of justice and reciprocity.
Thus, we have the basis for the commons and our recognition of it as an discern-able abstract representing a complex object (agent interaction) and something very real; also affectual, relevant, immutable.
When two agents create a transaction, by this same act, they simultaneously demonstrate publicly then create actually recognition of a commons: official observance.
If either hypothetical party were not in observance of the commons, no incentive for trust would exist either. Exchange would thus not be possible.
If commons went unrecognized because no party possessed adequate mental acuity to validate or even PERCIEVE a commons, then neither would there exist an incentive, high trust and subsequent market.
The mature human mind is vastly complex, which might explain why our bifurcation into righteous human interaction and commons reveals and discovers no less of an elegant thing, which when actualized and fulfilled, if we dare peer objectively from afar, is breathtakingly beautiful.
The truest expressions of the human mind are frustrated whenever high trust is not created, whenever the commons goes unrecognized, unobserved, undefended. Human beauty dies.
This elegant object is what good men, in constant awe, and for very good reasons, have long fought to secure and preserve for both themselves and the domestics.”