05-18-2016, 03:36 PM
while I don't agree with the OP on several points, there are legitimate arguments against libertarianism, or at least concerns. In particular private property rights is built on some tenuous logic. (homesteading principle, mixing labor with the land, etc ) Native americans and other cultures did just fine without property rights, at least of land. And by definition if I claim a piece of land as mine and society enforces that, then that has limited the freedom of all to travel on or use that land. Even though others might use it more efficiently and productively than me. Thus a core principle of libertarianism ( private property ) is in direct conflict with other core principles:
1) non-aggression: because enforcement of the private property may require force / aggression on a peaceful individual.
2) freedom: eg, of movement, of travel. because I may not go where I please and others may own all the land around me.
The restriction of liberty argument can be made for any tangible object. The libertarian argument of property rights may be more a practical/utilitarian argument than a moral/ethical one.
I think that in a truly enlightened culture living in a state of pure liberty, sharing would be the norm and outright theft would be exceptionally rare.
It seems to me there is room for a brand of libertarianism that is based on the NAP, but with a lessened or non-existent stance on property rights beyond one's own body. Such a crede could form the basis of a sharing culture.