Big Tent Libertarianism

From: N
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 5:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: re: The Libertarian Gender Gap

Reading the question about the numbers of female, libertarian anarchists vs. minarchists, I was reminded that I see little (read: no actual) difference between the two (minarchists and anarchists…assuming both are truly libertarian).  Do minarchists believe that one (and his property) can be justly bound by the state?  If so, on what grounds are they libertarian (I can’t see that not being a NAP violation)?  If not, what separates them from ancaps (ancaps, unless I’ve been terribly misled, don’t forbid voluntary association)?  It just seems like a semantics debate. Thanks for your time, N

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 10:24 AM
To: N
Subject: RE: re: The Libertarian Gender Gap

Dear N:

There are strong differences between Rothbard, an cap, and Nozick, Rand, minarchists, Ron Paul Andrew Napolitano, constitutionalist, and classical liberals such as Friedman and Hayek. Yet, I consider them all as libertarians, at least in the big tent version of our philosophy.

Distinctions of this sort are made in chemistry, between elements even though they are all chemicals, and in biology, species, genus, families, even though they are all alive. This is not mere semantics. Yes, only the an caps rigidly adhere to the NAP. But the others are still libertarians, in my big tent view.

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.