And that's what my central point is

And the new libertarian man, would be someone who is like, "oh, it's fine if I get shafted, as long as it's legal" either

If you're acquisition of property serves the function of actually *undermining* the the perpetuity of the libertarian society, you're a "shit person"

inefficient rentseeking and monopolizing, would fit into this definition

Yup

So you agree that libertarianism is incomplete

And that merely excluding non libertarians would not cut it, and even impede the formation of a moral society

the LP style liberatarianism is gay as fuck

which is why I don't use it

I'm not even talking about that

I'm referring to Rothbardian libertarianism

and also, that criticism fits into the two problems I already described

that of being culturally lassez faire

allowing the persistence of anti-libertarian institutions within a libertarian order, which adhere to the letter of the law, while violating its spirit, is culturally lassez faire

Check this out when you get time

https://youtu.be/FOAeJXsm5es

Ancap vs Right Wing Statist

Well, I tend to refer to NAP priorty libertarianism, and just say that the only way it can work is through Hoppean style cultural chauvinism. Rothbard wasn't an anarchist, though he was quite close in many of his arguments. Even he wasn't a culturally lassez faire libertarian.

Kokesh is fake and also gay.

I agree with many of the arguments I've heard from Rothbard, but some of the disagreements often stem from where he doesn't seem to have taken his own arguments to their full conclusion, or where he failed to account for certain variables.

Which ones?

There is a reason Rothbard became a Statist later in his life

Once he realized the failures of libertarianism

Well, his argument that parents should be allowed to abandoned their children, if only exclusively operating on the NAP.

I believe his argument, even with exclusive reference to the NAP, is incorrect.

Because he doesn't account for the fact that procreation is generally a voluntary act for the parents, but not voluntary to the new party being created, the child.

Basically, having a child, through consensual intercourse, is like two parties engaging in an activity that they have good reason to believe can incapacitate a non-consenting third party.

Ergo, they should be accountable for having placed that third party in the position of vulnerability.

In must the same way that, if your deliberate recklessness were to result in a car accident which paralyzed someone.

Rothbard became a statist?

I though he only started opposing open borders

I know he made strategic judgement involving the state and government. But that's triage more than anything. If you behave like you exist in a libertarian order, when you don't, you're just being an idiot.

True

Things like, "as long as the state does exist, I will argue it ought serve my interests" is not statism. It's just being practical.

And if that state is *always* going to violate the NAP, making an argument for a process of violation which is less destructive to libertarian goals is also strategic.

https://youtu.be/aR2L_O5rDek

What's funny is, from what I understand of propertarianism, that's pretty close to my position. So, I'm not really sure why we're arguing. I guess just over definitions of what constitutes a libertarian order.

My basic argument is that, for any kind of NAP or property oriented system of law to persist, it must be perpetuated by capable people whose priority is doing so, and who can recognize when that objective isn't being served, reacting accordingly.

Like, one could even argue that many of the original US stated values are not particularly terrible, but that the chief failing in their manifestation and persistence is simply that, for the people whose actions could have secured it, they simply, didn't regard it as a sufficient priority to do so.

And this is almost always the core problem, in any given system

People don't often prioritize high minded ideals over their own comfort and convenience.