Been thinking about your response for a bit on and off this morning. And while I understand your sentiments, because I share them, your response doesn’t make sense. Because a system can only produce the ends you desire if it can exist, persist, and produce those ends.
The way your desired ends are possible is through rule of law of the natural law of reciprocal insurance of reciprocity, discovered and applied as the common law in courts of the natural common law.
And we can only produce commons such as those, plus those we need and desire, like defense, insurance, and infrastructure if we have a government under those laws, that constitutes a market for the production of those commons.
So my point as always is that libertarianism is an entry-level individual moral code but is not a survivable collective political system. Hence it’s appeal to young males.
So, it merely means that libertarianism is insufficient at best. At worst, it is a justification for jewish, gypsy, muslim (or similar) separatism, and the license to prey upon high trust europeans by baiting into the hazard of asymmetric costs and returns under the pretense of voluntariness (volition) when in fact such bait is a coercion. Thus these ‘cultures’ and their ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ if you wish to extend the the term as such, are means of destroying the high trust commons we have produced over the past five millennia – by taking advantage of our lack of awareness – our taking for granted- that high trust under the assumption that all other humans share our traditions and values.
They don’t.
Rothbardian libertarianism was a deception to justify the dishonesty of irreciprocal behavior by the minority that Rothbard belonged to.