Are these forums representative of the Mises institute?

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

By the way, while I made the original complication of the quotes in a blog post, I wasn’t using them to represent the Mises Institute as a whole, I was using them to represent certain specific sentiments within held by certain people within (roughly relating to Hoppe, hence the title invoking “The Hoppeans” rather than “The Mises Institute”).

Go back and read your blog post title. Not only did you conflate those comments with Hoppe, but LvMI and many of us here. You also did not source link the quotes, so they could be read in context, and in at least once case, took a sentence fragment and made it a complete sentence, which made it appear much different than it appeared naturally.

This is fairly typical for you to omit source to substantiate your claim. Then the babbling fool Carson takes it a step further, by referencing a blog, that sourced a blog that sourced a forum, then took to pontificating on it, and judging massive swathes of people by it. He also neglected to source link to you, and cleaned out any quotes that were embarassing to his cause, further providing an incomplete picture around them.

@Brainpolice

Furthermore, I didn’t submit the blogpost to Kevin Carson myself. Apparently Francios Tremblay made a blogpost linking to mine, which is where Kevin Carson got it.

That’s what happens when you strike matches in a dry field. Every LL diaper dandy comes running to comment on those cruel Misesians, and it goes viral in the jackass blog network. You either knew what you were doing, or are incredibly naive.

@Brainpolice

The best label I can grace these people with is simply “confused”.

I’m not interested in a flame war, but you seem completely oblivious to what goes on around you. It’s this arrogance that you should label or grace anyone that has led to someone stalking you offline. Perhaps you should focus less on trying to be self-righteous and more on effective socialization with other people. Just because you have a lot to communicate, doesn’t mean you are communicating it effectively. Singling out 4 people and misrepresenting them is a form of bullying. Again, this is the sort of interaction that attracts unstable people to stalk you.

I’m done with this, said my piece. Send all flames by PM.

[Brainpolice]

@Sphairon

@Brainpolice

The entire point is that a city government selling itself off to a private monopolist who goes on to have absolute control over everyone in the territory, is just a transfer of state ownership really.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you that will later be part of your city and which I may live on under certain conditions, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you’re a rich Hoppean with monarchic ambitions who hires poor people to homestead land for his future city and who allows these hired homesteaders to live on the homesteaded ground under certain conditions (e.g., not insulting His Majesty), do these poor people then own the land? I guess not.

But see, we now have a private city with its own king, founded and maintained in a completely libertarian fashion. Of course, it’s silly to assume that selling government to a private contractor will make it libertarian. However, that is not at all the point. The point is that restrictive covenants and private monarchies can arise voluntarily on the market using the very system of property acquisition that you are championing here.

You very well know that my argument is against such faux privatization of cities, not any kind of justified homesteading.

You’re against restrictive covenants per se, regardless of how they were founded. That you have quite clearly expressed in your arguments with Stodles.

These are non-sequitors. The point is: the state selling itself to some private individual or organization is faux privatization, this title transfer is not consistant with libertarianism (it’s analogous to a thief peddling stolen goods), and the new owner either becomes the defacto state, or an apt pretext for one. As for monarchies, by definition, they are not libertarian institutions. It doesn’t matter if it’s nominally “private”, it is not founded on voluntarism, especially as the generations pass by. Monarchy means one ruler. Anarchy means no rulers. The distinction is obvious. Why a libertarian would even think about monarchies being in a free society, other than perhaps to sugar-coat authoritarian preferences with libertarian rhetoric, is beyond me.

I’m against “restrictive covenants” on the grounds that they are not just free association, but a mini-social contract, as in uniformly applied to everyone in the community, without regaurd for consent per se. I’ve objected to such “social covenants” being enforce via iniations of force, and argued that they are ultimately unsustainable without such force. For example, if some white girl in the community gets pregnant with a black guy when out of town, and comes back to town and has the baby, this “social covenant” doesn’t apply to the baby, and I really have to wonder what the people in the town would do at such a point in order to keep their “social covenant” intact. So do not misrepresent my position. Since a few weeks ago, stodles has been openly mocking the NAP. He no longer is trying to reconcile these things, he’s just assaulting the basic libertarian ideas via a very immature type of amoralism and linguistic anti-realism. If you can’t see that, that’s your problem. These people are obscurantists.

[Brainpolice]

@Nitroadict

@Sphairon

@Brainpolice

The entire point is that a city government selling itself off to a private monopolist who goes on to have absolute control over everyone in the territory, is just a transfer of state ownership really.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you that will later be part of your city and which I may live on under certain conditions, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you’re a rich Hoppean with monarchic ambitions who hires poor people to homestead land for his future city and who allows these hired homesteaders to live on the homesteaded ground under certain conditions (e.g., not insulting His Majesty), do these poor people then own the land? I guess not.

But see, we now have a private city with its own king, founded and maintained in a completely libertarian fashion. Of course, it’s silly to assume that selling government to a private contractor will make it libertarian. However, that is not at all the point. The point is that restrictive covenants and private monarchies can arise voluntarily on the market using the very system of property acquisition that you are championing here.

But voluntary monarchism / voluntary socialism / voluntary feudalism isn’t the moral thing to support, so we must force morals onto others via a synthesis of morals & libertarianism to ensure evil never happens!

That’s a ridiculous mockery of my position. Monarchism is not voluntary. This should not be controversial. Libertarianism already involves interpersonal ethics, it needs no further synthesis in order to involve them on a basic level. I can rely on Rothbard to back me up on this, given “The Ethics of Liberty”. This isn’t about “forcing” morals on others, it’s about clarity. By all means, if you want to completely divorce libertarian from interpersonal ethical norms that lead to the conclusion of non-rulership, go ahead, but you’re essentially ripping the foundation of libertarianism apart if you do so.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

The point is: the state selling itself to some private individual or organization is faux privatization, this title transfer is not consistant with libertarianism (it’s analogous to a thief peddling stolen goods), and the new owner either becomes the defacto state, or an apt pretext for one.

Why are you conflating different issues?

@Brainpolice

I’m against “restrictive covenants” on the grounds that they are not just free association, but a mini-social contract, as in uniformly applied to everyone in the community, without regaurd for consent per se.

How horrible it is that people will wish to use their property in the way they desire. Guess what? Freedom of association entails the freedom not to associate.

And yes, if you live there, you consent.

@Brainpolice

For example, if some white girl in the community gets pregnant with a black guy when out of town, and comes back to town and has the baby, this “social covenant” doesn’t apply to the baby, and I really have to wonder what the people in the town would do at such a point in order to keep their “social covenant” intact.

Of course it does, if the child stays there the restrictions apply to the child.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

The point is: the state selling itself to some private individual or organization is faux privatization, this title transfer is not consistant with libertarianism (it’s analogous to a thief peddling stolen goods), and the new owner either becomes the defacto state, or an apt pretext for one.

Why are you conflating different issues?

@Brainpolice

I’m against “restrictive covenants” on the grounds that they are not just free association, but a mini-social contract, as in uniformly applied to everyone in the community, without regaurd for consent per se.

How horrible it is that people will wish to use their property in the way they desire. Guess what? Freedom of association entails the freedom not to associate.

And yes, if you live there, you consent.

@Brainpolice

For example, if some white girl in the community gets pregnant with a black guy when out of town, and comes back to town and has the baby, this “social covenant” doesn’t apply to the baby, and I really have to wonder what the people in the town would do at such a point in order to keep their “social covenant” intact.

Of course it does, if the child stays there the restrictions apply to the child.

I wasn’t argueing against disassociation. That’s either dishonest or a misunderstanding that gets annoying. Your responses to my points are mostly non-sequitors. I made no objection to voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. My entire point was that these things in question are not merely a matter voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. It starts to sound exactly like the social contract. Sorry to break it to you, but freedom of association transcends even contracts. No contract can be perpetual in conditions of freedom of association. The moment you unliterally impose a contract onto unconsenting 3rd parties, or intergenerationally, it is the same thing as the social contract.

As for your claim that the restrictive covenant applies to the black baby who did not choose to live in the community, then you support intergenerational slavery and the basis for the social contract. That is the whole naivety of this matter. Intergenerationally, you cannot perpetually enforce these covenants given such situations without essentially violating the NAP and establishing it as a uniform coercive law. The only way to keep the community “pure” at such a point, given an influx of “undesirables” via voluntary association irrespective of your communitarian law, is by establishing it as a social contract and blatantly violating libertarian principles of justice (which is transcends contracts).

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

I wasn’t argueing against disassociation. That’s either dishonest or a misunderstanding that gets annoying. Your responses to my points are mostly non-sequitors. I made no objection to voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. My entire point was that these things in question are not merely a matter voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. It starts to sound exactly like the social contract.

What do you think restrictive covenants are?

And individual who owns land through voluntary exchange can form this sort of arrangement.

@Brainpolice

As for your claim that the restrictive covenant applies to the black baby who did not choose to live in the community, then you support intergenerational slavery and the basis for the social contract. That is the whole naivety of this matter. Intergenerationally, you cannot perpetually enforce these covenants given such situations without essentially violating the NAP and establishing it as a uniform coercive law

No slavery. Just property rights. The black child has no right to be there, in order to be there he has to conform to the rules.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

I wasn’t argueing against disassociation. That’s either dishonest or a misunderstanding that gets annoying. Your responses to my points are mostly non-sequitors. I made no objection to voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. My entire point was that these things in question are not merely a matter voluntary exchange or voluntary disassociation. It starts to sound exactly like the social contract.

What do you think restrictive covenants are?

And individual who owns land through voluntary exchange can form this sort of arrangement.

@Brainpolice

As for your claim that the restrictive covenant applies to the black baby who did not choose to live in the community, then you support intergenerational slavery and the basis for the social contract. That is the whole naivety of this matter. Intergenerationally, you cannot perpetually enforce these covenants given such situations without essentially violating the NAP and establishing it as a uniform coercive law

No slavery. Just property rights. The black child has no right to be there, in order to be there he has to conform to the rules.

Sorry, your “social covenant”, as put foreward by you, is indistinguishable from the social contract. You cannot contract away someone else’s right to exist. The implications of your idea is psychopathic, kicking babies out of communities because of a communitarian law about skin color. It’s ridiculous. Are you going to kick the mother out too? What about her property rights? Does she lose her property rights over her home for the sin of having a black baby? All of this is authoritarian nonsense via vague appeal to confused property rights theory. Fuck your communitarian rules.

[ivanfoofoo]

Why should mothers go to live to a community that forbids black babies???

I agree with GilesStratton, it’s all about property rights. If the propietor is conservative enough to establish contracts that forbids something, it’s in his right, as long as he doesn’t go against natural rights.

[Brainpolice]

@ivanfoofoo

Why should mothers go to live to a community that forbids black babies???

I agree with GilesStratton, it’s all about property rights. If the propietor is conservative enough to establish contracts that forbids something, it’s in his right, as long as he doesn’t go against natural rights.

I don’t know, why would anyone even think such an idea is rational in the first place?

The whole point is that this isn’t a mere matter of free association, it’s a unilaterally enforced and intergenerational law on the entire community, regaurdless of consent. Giles is defending communitarianism, plain and simple. Indeed, it is partially about property rights: some communitarian law does not negate the property rights of some homeowner. If it’s their home, it’s you violating their property rights by kicking them out of it. Mini-social-contracts are not compatible with property rights if they still have the same fundamental features of externalized enforcement.

You’re not going to get everyone to uniformly sign your “social covenant”, and you’re not going to get people to perpetually be part of it (people will want to opt out at some point). If you disallow opting out (I.E. make the contract perpetual), and if you uniformly try to enforce the contract onto unconsenting 3rd parties, this is just a mini-state at best. It’s the same thing as the social contract, only perhaps on a smaller scale. Furthermore, this is all based on the presumption of a single individual or organization owning the entire community prior to people trying to live inside of it, which I find nearly impossible via voluntary means, particularly considering already existing residency in a community.

[krazy_kaju]

So let’s say someone gives birth on my property. I can’t say that in order for the newborn to stay on my property, it should conform to my rules? Wouldn’t that be a violation of my property rights? Or am I just misunderstanding what you’re saying?

EDIT: Also, we should quit using the term “private monarchy” since it clearly is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps it should be replaced with manorialism or seigneurialism, terms that refer to the economic/social institutions of feudalism, but not the existence of the state.

[Nitroadict]

@Brainpolice

@Nitroadict

@Sphairon

@Brainpolice

The entire point is that a city government selling itself off to a private monopolist who goes on to have absolute control over everyone in the territory, is just a transfer of state ownership really.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you that will later be part of your city and which I may live on under certain conditions, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you’re a rich Hoppean with monarchic ambitions who hires poor people to homestead land for his future city and who allows these hired homesteaders to live on the homesteaded ground under certain conditions (e.g., not insulting His Majesty), do these poor people then own the land? I guess not.

But see, we now have a private city with its own king, founded and maintained in a completely libertarian fashion. Of course, it’s silly to assume that selling government to a private contractor will make it libertarian. However, that is not at all the point. The point is that restrictive covenants and private monarchies can arise voluntarily on the market using the very system of property acquisition that you are championing here.

But voluntary monarchism / voluntary socialism / voluntary feudalism isn’t the moral thing to support, so we must force morals onto others via a synthesis of morals & libertarianism to ensure evil never happens!

That’s a ridiculous mockery of my position. Monarchism is not voluntary. This should not be controversial. Libertarianism already involves interpersonal ethics, it needs no further synthesis in order to involve them on a basic level. I can rely on Rothbard to back me up on this, given “The Ethics of Liberty”. This isn’t about “forcing” morals on others, it’s about clarity. By all means, if you want to completely divorce libertarian from interpersonal ethical norms that lead to the conclusion of non-rulership, go ahead, but you’re essentially ripping the foundation of libertarianism apart if you do so.

It’s a mockery of the ever-lasting “battle” between waring “factions” of libertarianism, not specifically your position, which I already take issue with, if only because of the instant appeal to authority you give, by referring to Rothbard.

I haven’t read Ethics of Liberty just yet, and no doubt I probably would find really good arguments, but just because Rothbard or “x” figure said it, doesn’t necessarily make it instantly true. Perhaps instead of just referring to Rothbard’s name, you could actually give a tidbit of text that supports your argument that monarchism is not voluntary, at least regarding TEOL (The Ethics of Liberty) ?

Otherwise, I thought Sphairon gave a pretty good counter-example of monarchism being voluntary. Why can’t a city be privatized by such voluntary means? Should we start arguing against privatizing all sorts of other things, as well?

I will, however, by all means keep my mind open, my tone civil, and my attitude humble & capable of humor, something all “sides” (whoever they are) as of late seem to consistently forget unless they are making easy-to-bait articles / posts & snickering amongst themselves at their cherished collectivism (example: “Authoritarians in Libertarian Clothing”, whatever latest post Giles may have made that causes controversy and/or whatever right-libertarian out there who is bad mouthing LL on their blog, etc.).

Frankly, I’m surprised Maury hasn’t shown up with a lie detector to announce who isn’t the father of a particular baby “momma”.

[Brainpolice]

@krazy kaju

So let’s say someone gives birth on my property. I can’t say that in order for the newborn to stay on my property, it should conform to my rules? Wouldn’t that be a violation of my property rights? Or am I just misunderstanding what you’re saying?

We’re not talking about the homeowner. I’m talking about rules imposed on the homeowner by “the community” or some “social covenant”. In my scenario, the homeowner wants to stay, and they want to keep the baby on their property. The “social covenant”, however, demands that the baby must be kicked out of the community (or the mother even). My concern is precisely for the property rights of the homeowner, among other things (such as the baby’s right to exist). In the scenario, the homeowner, the mother and/or the baby are being kicked out of the entire community.

[Sphairon]

@Brainpolice

The point is: the state selling itself to some private individual or organization is faux privatization, this title transfer is not consistant with libertarianism (it’s analogous to a thief peddling stolen goods), and the new owner either becomes the defacto state, or an apt pretext for one.

That’s entirely true, but not at all the point of our debate as GilesStratton has already pointed out.

As for monarchies, by definition, they are not libertarian institutions.

Maybe according to your vague thick/thin libertarianism dichotomy. For me, everything that’s rooted in sound property acquisition is libertarian since property rights are the very basis of libertarianism. It stands and falls with private property. Rights are merely extensions of property.

Denying this for the sake of some controversial “libertarian ought to” condition does exactly what Giles and Byzantine are supposedly guilty of, using libertarianism as a front to push a hidden agenda.

Anarchy means no rulers.

Right, so you’re now against individual sovereignty? Am I the ruler of my property or do I owe the community my services for letting me have it?

Anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean no rulers, but the choice to which ruler you’d like to subject yourself: a tyrant, a clergyman, a pop star or none at all. It’s none of your business which choices others might prefer.

I’m against “restrictive covenants” on the grounds that they are not just free association, but a mini-social contract, as in uniformly applied to everyone in the community, without regaurd for consent per se.

Wrong again. Restrictive covenants are formed by universal consent. In the process, everyone living in the covenant gives up their full property title and agrees to drop any claims should they end up disagreeing with the main tenets of the communtiy. That’s a valid and voluntary contract.

Since a few weeks ago, stodles has been openly mocking the NAP.

He’s been pointing out some obvious flaws that moral objectivists like to overlook. His term “selective non-aggression preference” hits the nail on the head.

he’s just assaulting the basic libertarian ideas via a very immature type of amoralism and linguistic anti-realism.

That’s funny because his approach to social order seems to be rooted in reality much more than any theoretical “objective” utopias. Plus, you can still support the selective non-aggression preference without referring to it as the objective truth.

[krazy_kaju]

So what if someone contracts people out to homestead a large area of land for him, and then he allows people to live there as long as they reaffirm his ownership of that property and follow his rules?

[Brainpolice]

Maybe according to your vague thick/thin libertarianism dichotomy. For me, everything that’s rooted in sound property acquisition is libertarian since property rights are the very basis of libertarianism. It stands and falls with private property. Rights are merely extensions of property.

My entire point is precisely that monarchy is not rooted in sound/just property aquisition. And no, rights are not extensions of property, property is an extension of rights. The right to life and liberty precedes the right to property. Property does not negate other people’s basic rights. Your property does not give you legitimate power to violate the rights of others in any consistant libertarian social theory. I’ve explained this ad nauseum.

Right, so you’re now against individual sovereignty? Am I the ruler of my property or do I owe the community my services for letting me have it?

This is such a ridiculous non-sequitor that it’s barely worthy of response. No, I’m making these objections (objections to monarchy and communitarianism) precisely because I am for individual sovereignty. As for your question, it’s a false dichotomy. Owning property /= rulership in and of itself, and communism isn’t the only alternative to monarchy.

Anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean no rulers, but the choice to which ruler you’d like to subject yourself: a tyrant, a clergyman, a pop star or none at all. It’s none of your business which choices others might prefer.

Sorry, but this is just a bastardization of the meaning of anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers. “Choice” between rulers is illusory, rulership inherently is not voluntarily chosen by the individual in any consistant manner. Aren’t you aware of Spooner’s quip that a choice between masters does not eliminate the fact that you’re a slave? This isn’t about mere personal choice, the whole point is that you cannot unilaterally force decisions onto others without explicit consent. I’m talking about people’s “choice” to rule others, not a personal choice. Anarchy is not polyarchy. A “choice” between states is not liberty.

Wrong again. Restrictive covenants are formed by universal consent.

This is an assumption. I don’t buy it. The way these restrictive covenants are being described, they are NOT formed by universal consent.

He’s been pointing out some obvious flaws that moral objectivists like to overlook. His term “selective non-aggression preference” hits the nail on the head.

No, he’s been argueing against the entire basis for libertarianism and anarchism. That you buy into it is just your own idiocy.

That’s funny because his approach to social order seems to be rooted in reality much more than any theoretical “objective” utopias. Plus, you can still support the selective non-aggression preference without referring to it as the objective truth.

This has nothing to do with “objective” or “subjective”. The dichotomy is fallacious half the time anyways. Assaulting those who disagree as “objectivists” is just a dishonest way to avoid having to address their position.

[Brainpolice]

@krazy kaju

So what if someone contracts people out ot homestead a large area of land for him, and then he allows people to live there as long as they reaffirm his ownership of that property and follow his rules?

That isn’t the pretext for the scenario. It’s a highly doubtable pretext to boot.

[Juan]

@Sphairon

For me, everything that’s rooted in sound property acquisition is libertarian since property rights are the very basis of libertarianism. It stands and falls with private property. Rights are merely extensions of property.

Here’s a nice appeal to authority for you. If you bother to read Bastiat’s The Law you might learn that property rights are an extension to the individual rights to life and liberty.

I would quite fallaciously argue that Bastiat’s understanding of political theory trumps yours.

But wait. Given that you now seem to be an amoralist, what’s the point of ever argue anything anyway ? Whatever happens, happens. Who cares ?

[krazy_kaju]

@Brainpolice

@krazy kaju

So what if someone contracts people out ot homestead a large area of land for him, and then he allows people to live there as long as they reaffirm his ownership of that property and follow his rules?

That isn’t the pretext for the scenario. It’s a highly doubtable pretext to boot.

Even if it is highly doubtable, wouldn’t you agree that it is a valid contract?

I’m simply building upon what Sphairon was saying here:

@Sphairon

@Brainpolice

The entire point is that a city government selling itself off to a private monopolist who goes on to have absolute control over everyone in the territory, is just a transfer of state ownership really.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you that will later be part of your city and which I may live on under certain conditions, do I own the land? I guess not.

If you’re a rich Hoppean with monarchic ambitions who hires poor people to homestead land for his future city and who allows these hired homesteaders to live on the homesteaded ground under certain conditions (e.g., not insulting His Majesty), do these poor people then own the land? I guess not.

But see, we now have a private city with its own king, founded and maintained in a completely libertarian fashion. Of course, it’s silly to assume that selling government to a private contractor will make it libertarian. However, that is not at all the point. The point is that restrictive covenants and private monarchies can arise voluntarily on the market using the very system of property acquisition that you are championing here.

You very well know that my argument is against such faux privatization of cities, not any kind of justified homesteading.

You’re against restrictive covenants per se, regardless of how they were founded. That you have quite clearly expressed in your arguments with Stodles.

[Thedesolateone]

@Brainpolice

@Sphairon

How can you name your blog “Polycentric Order”, but object to cities owned by entrepreneurs at the same time? That’s an unlikely, but perfectly sound distribution of property. For some people, it may be convenient to be merely renters and not owners. Some people may be comfortable with limited responsibility so they can enjoy their life instead of worrying about property disputes.

Do we all have to be self-sufficient hermits to be good libertarians?

It’s a centralized monopoly on a city!

If I own my house, do I have a “centralised monopoly on a house”?

[Sphairon]

@Brainpolice

And no, rights are not extensions of property, property is an extension of rights.

Rights are derived from individual self-ownership. You own yourself; you are entitled to yourself as your property. So, in your words, property is an extension of property?

The right to life and liberty precedes the right to property.

Either rights are derived from self-ownership. In that case, property is the foundation of rights and not the other way round.

Or rights are just some pipe dream from the pool of “ought to” conditions. Then, rights are the foundation for everything you want them to found. Sounds like social democracy to me (“right to education”).

This is such a ridiculous non-sequitor that it’s barely worthy of response.

Precisely not! Claiming that libertarian anarchy can only function in the absence of rulers comes dangerously close to denying the sovereignty of property owners which you actually do as soon as property usage starts to violate your preferences.

You may twist and turn it, but if I want to be king on my property, I can set the rules accordingly. If my renters do not agree with it, they can move out. They do not have a right to my property just because I’ve declared myself king. Nor do their children, there’s no danger of “intergenerational slavery” involved here.

Anarchy means no rulers.

In that case, I’m not an anarchist. Maybe I’m for polycentric order, then?

“Choice” between rulers is illusory, rulership inherently is not voluntarily chosen by the individual in any consistant manner.

That’s why I included the option “none at all” in my list. You have a choice not to be ruled, but likewise, you must respect those who like to subject themselves to the guidance of “natural elites”. If natural elites suck, the market will figure that out. I don’t have a stake in that business, I’m just a regular Joe.

No, he’s been argueing against the entire basis for libertarianism and anarchism. That you buy into it is just your own idiocy.

I don’t “buy into it”, it just reaffirmed my position that I developed indepedently of Stodles. Face it, as long as non-aggression only applies to humans, it’s selective. It’s not a principle and it’s not objective. However, extending that principle to the non-human realm would make living pretty much impossible. Catch-22 here, I guess.