Truth To Power wrote:But it has economic implications.
Staying out of economics completely has economic implications, maternity leave has economic implications but I don't always think about them like that, but an economist might.
Wrong. It's not "forcing an economic model" to note the economic implications of a political model.
I didn't mean to imply that being a libertarian required you to force your economic values on people, that is the point I am trying to make; to me that is what is unlibertarian.
Libertarianism is not social atomism. The liberty to "do economics" with other people is a central tenet of libertarianism.
Actually now that I look up social atomism that is a significant chunk of what libertarianism is to me. My interpretation is "Liberty" is a central tenet of libertarianism, economics is just a byproduct.
Garbage. True libertarians (i.e., not the typical feudal "libertarians" who believe in landed property) don't try to make others share their economic values, and it's absurd, self-contradictory and anti-logical to claim that requiring respect for a principle of "no force" is forcing that principle on others.
I don't know what your trying to say here but I would state that to some people self defense is an exception to the "no force" rule.
Once you start trying to put your money values onto other people and stop minding your own business you cease being a Libertarian and start being aggressive economist.
How have I "put my money values onto other people"?
The stereotype that gets pushed onto Libertarianism by everyone else is what I was referencing and I was trying to explain its more like neglect or avoiding that issue than agreeing with such and such economic system.
Libertarianism -- if that means a government that secures people's rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor against violence.
Your next answer is a great example of how this could get incredible complicated, do you share a common belief of property with your neighbors who you want protection from, if your in conflict with them the odds of this just went down. A commune to to be for or against them are very hive like and would consider a lot of your things their things, etc if someone came in and said this is mine because you haven't claimed it and restricts everyone from using it, wouldn't they want protection from this "aggression".
Assuming you were allowed your definition of property not being land which system would you pick. I don't think these words are very definitive in a way more like vague descriptions of how large groups of people sort of do things.
What about the fact that society tends to job specialize and by that logic implies that the general population lacks higher qualifications for this. Not to say that sometimes if society just decides one day to stop polluting and applies social pressure, assuming a majority, to people who didn't isn't without its value. After thinking about it a bit it is kind of a trick question and that those are sources of law not replacements to each other.
But in most cases, not a place I want to be.
I have no arguments with this, I don't see a single big name government out there I truly believe in.