“Can you clarify something for me; are you saying libertarianism, a certain moral system, Austrian economics, and anarcho-capitalism are interchangeable synonymous words, or did I completely miss your point?”
Sure. No, that’s not what I’m saying. Libertarianism is a political philosophy - which is a subset of ethics, it has nothing to do with Austrian Economics - which is value free. For eg. you can have an Austrian Economist - who understands the praxeological considerations, i.e that rent control destroys, but in term - he is a Nazi (political philosophy) and supports the Israeli government adopting such a policy.
The question of religion is another completely different ballpark. Where natural law ultimately comes from is completely irrelevent to political philosophy. Natural law is neither anti-religious, or pro-religious. It’s a different ontological question. There is also the type of personal ethics one adopts.
My point was - why stop at Austrian? Why not a “moralizing” Utilitarian-Libertarian-Austrian-Athiest-NeoKantian? Could probably add some more onto that, anyway it was a brief attempt at argumentum ad absurdum. Libertarianism I’d use as a general description of those who try and apply the NAP as their principle. Anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism.
This may clear things up; (context is discussion about thick and thin libertarianism) - may be helpful here though. From Wilderness:
"I came at it from the opposite direction which I think Conza is doing. It’s as if you are reading the story from the left column to the right column and I am reading it from the right to the left, ie. opposite direction. It gives the name a whole other meaning. The way I was reading it, is the noun (libertarian) is being added upon by the adjective, ie. thick or thin. The noun is staying political and the adjective is determining the kind of politics, ie. the noun. Read the way you put it, the noun is political but the adjective is a whole separate concept, yet, such a concept is still being discussed within a class of political individuals called libertarians so the thin and thick by such an effort might only have to do with libertarians and nobody else. But is that true? Are there no thick and thin socialists? I don’t know. But it would seem the way you are using the terms thick and thin they are not dependent on libertarian, ie. the politics. So if thick and thin are not dependent on politics then thick and thin has to be able to be used with other political stances. Now if thick and thin can’t be used by other political stances and if the thick and thin are only “indicating… a broader group of values”, then I don’t really have a problem with that.
To attach non-political values to a political term will make it a bit flustering unless of course it is vetted out as to what you mean, I mean, Conza means, etc… I think Conza sees the adjective as influencing the noun. Adjectives do that. That’s why they are grammatical of that sense. But if thin and thick are nouns too and libertarian remains a noun, then I think that’s what you are talking about. And as I said how can I really have a problem with that because that would be what I’m saying and what Conza and even E.R. are saying. Political is not ‘these broader values’. We are all agreeing with that. But does the grammar and thus meaning if thick and thin are adjectives placed onto the noun really doing that? I incline no."