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.

I don’t know enough about propertarianism to critique it. The Wikipedia page on it isn’t very detailed, but it doesn’t look objectionable.

Often only doing so when they feel there are sufficient, and immediate costs to inaction.

@Drywa11 The Wikipedia article is mostly about Minarchism. What I'm referencing is different.

I myself am not particularly sure how it really differs from the hoppean model.

https://propertarianism.com

If you could explain that, it would be appreciated.

It basically expands the NAP to include more immoral acts

And relies on reciprocity

It is significantly different from Hoppeanism

which immoral acts?

Although I think it is a step in the right direction, it is still not complete. Nevertheless, it is much better than the current mainstream theories.

also, why can't those just be supplemented to the NAP via contract?

Yeah, i was just going back up to look at that

most of those are either already violations of the NAP, or something which could easily be covered via contract law

I also recently came across this system, so still learning about it

Religion specifically is kind of a sticky point. I think I know what it's getting at, but there's a lot of ambiguity. And I'm not sure what it means by "privitization"

since people often use it different ways in different contexts

Most of these things should be discouraged, even if they're not argued to be covered by the NAP.

Free-riding, for instance.

I came across this here for the first time

https://youtu.be/GbKbEtN_VyM

Skip to 53:40

But then, it's been explained before how free riding can be discouraged without arguing for specific enforcement to occur against it. For instance, the Lighthouse example. A ship benefits from the lighthouse being operational, even if it doesn't pay for it, and they can't risk shutting it down, because another ship might be in proximity that has paid their dues. However, there's no absolute guarantee that there will *never* be a situation in which there isn't at least on ship in proximity which has paid these dues. And that's the risk that any free riders take. And that risk increases the more free riders their are.

Vaccination is actually an interesting example, because I've heard some libertarians actually argue in favor of mandatory vaccination due to externalities. But many of those externalities are really created because of other, already extant violations of property rights, such as mandatory schooling, public commons, and anti-discrimination laws.

It goes till 57:02

If a person has the right to not vaccinate their children, but another person has the right to not allow them in their establishment because of this, this is generally moot.

Then there also comes the problem of asymmetric knowledge

Yes.

But then, even with symmetric knowledge, there's asymmetric priorities.

Yeah. But then, even with a wall, illegals overstay their visas

That's why you don't let them in to begin with.

Until you have the reasonable ability to actually remove illegals in a timely fashion should they overstay their visas, you just shouldn't let them in, as a general rule.