Kinship doesn't mean blood/ethnic relations.

Start treating it as leadership for libertarians, and libertarianism is fucked

Learned that one by experience in the military, and hard knocks.

Libertarianism is lacking from the get go

It's axioms are incomplete

Curt Doolittle's Propertarianism is much better in addressing many concerns

There are two key problems with libertarianism. One more or less inherent, and one which festered from a disease incubating within it as a method of subversion.

In any case, I agree that reduction of power at the federal level is key.

I, however, have yet to see anything less than conflict of some form able to bring the needed balance.

The first problem is that too many libertarians assume that people think like them, and hold similar priorities, and would be willing to leave others alone if they're largely left alone to achieve their own ends. The second problem is that libertarians were deceived into believing that they could be culturally lassez faire, in the same way they are economically lassaz faire. And moreover, that not wanting the government to enforce norms and laws, means that they ought not themselves leverage their power to maintain their values in their society.

We tried softball (Obama - seriously, hope and chane) & are now on hardball (Trump).. next is direct application of the bat.

i dunno too much about propertarianism but from what i know about it it seems like it elevates law to an unhealthy degree

Even if you grant these two propositions, libertarianism has many problems

A libertarian order, to be successful, first of all, must secure the exclusion of non-libertarians. And second, those who uphold and value that libertarian order must be dangerous, fierce, proactive, and willing to make sacrifices to avoid being subverted or conquered by alien interlopers and dissidents. Hoppe has a better model for this. Libertarians cannot be hippies. And their peace and security must be earned through strength, preparedness, and a reverence for duty.

It can't be an atomized society of exclusively self-interested parties. But those who share a foundational common purpose.

And it must recognize that those who value libertarianism sincerely are not typical of the human race. They are the exception. And that what is *normal* for mankind, is to achieve their ends through aggression, or through leveraging the aggression of others, where they expect the benefits to outweigh the costs.

And to understand that aggression itself has a market utility.

Whether it is believed moral, or not.

aggression is just the product of conflicting interests

Menace, what kind of government would enforce this? Obviously republic does not work if you are excluding non libertarians.

i don't see why a republic couldn't exclude non-libertarians

but i don't think he would want that

A libertarian order is enforced by libertarians. That's why they're essential, and why exclusivity is so important.

As with all societies hoping to persist.

To add to that, even if you ensure the exclusion of such people who absolutely believe in the NAP and Property Rights, you won't have a just society as you're expecting. At many levels, it won't be much different than letting the non libertarian hordes in.

This is fundamentally because the axioms themselves are incomplete and thus you'd need more than that to encapsulate morality and a moral society.

what he's getting at seems to a small ideologically homogenous community

It's not based on a specific government, because a government can only sustain values for as long as those who comprise that government are invested in doing so. If the values of the people align with achieving libertarian ends, it doesn't matter what government they have, they will strive towards this end.

The problem is, that very few people actually want this, or are willing to work for it, or sacrifice for it.

So, it doesn't happen.

@Monstrous Moonshine As I said, if securing a libertarian order isn't a foundational priority, then it just won't happen. That's the position we're at now. It's not that it isn't feasible, it's that most people don't actually want it. They would rather leverage the aggression of others opportunistically to their benefit, where they assume the personal costs are sufficiently low, even, and often especially, if they themselves don't approve of that aggression.

They're basically outsourcing their violent solutions to other parties, because they themselves either don't want to experience the risks of that violence, or because exercising that force is too psychologically distressing. As a result, people who are willing to act in aggressive ways for the benefit of others, even insincerely, can leverage considerable influence.

And my objection is that this "libertarian order" is fundamentally incomplete

What is incomplete about it, other than what is meant to be filled by further covenant?

NAP is foundational, but also barebones. It's not meant to be the exclusive priority. There are ways organization can occur beyond it.

In fact, it's essential that such a society have other values, and those values be generally uniform, if it's to remain stable.

Furthermore, there is no utopian solution. Regardless of how much they might strive to adhere to principles, at a certain point, survival must, and almost inevitably will, take precedent.

At a basic level, it incentives atomized individualist hedonism

That's why hoppean covenant community libertarianism is what I'm basing this on

Then there are problems with Property Rights and who decides what property is apt for a person