You’re confusing big L libertarianism with small L libertarianism. Austrians are generally small L libertarians. We’re not interested in politics (power). We’re interested in markets.
The NAP is an ethical stance, and it is fundamental to what being a libertarian anarchist is all about.
They both cover the same topics but in different ways.
Libertarianism defines a potential way for humans to interact on a macroscopic scale, that they should not initiate aggression.
NAP suggests that initiation of aggression is morally wrong.
The first is a definition of a set of actions. The second is a reason for that set of actions. A person can desire libertarianism for reasons besides the NAP (such as optimal economic performance).
It may be fundamental for your belief in libertarian anarchism but it’s reasonable for someone to believe in libertarian anarchism without having grounding in an ethical preference. In my case, I believe that libertarian anarchism would result in a more efficient market which would result in a higher quality of life for myself. I do not believe in libertarian anarchism for any moral reasons, my reasons come from a moral nihilist perspective.
Both of us could very well agree that humans should interact in some particular way on a macroscopic scale (libertarian anarchism) but that doesn’t mean we have to agree on why we think they should.
Sure, and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. This isn’t the first conflict of definition we have had. It won’t be the last either. You simply refuse to use definitions that are already the norm, or to define your own terms clearly. Nearly every retort in these discussions from you, is a middle of the road,
“An apple could be an apple, but who says it can’t be a banana?”
If you’re not willing to define terms carefully so that we don’t debate strawmen, then it will be impossible to have a productive exchange of ideas. It would be like you speaking in French and my speaking in Chinese. Any understanding we reach is going to be random and arbitrary at best.
I will ask you again, what is libertarian anarchism? Define your terms please.
Micah,
You’re confusing a definition with your own values. You can think an apple is a banana, but that doesn’t make it a banana, regardless of how you feel about it.
You’re not a libertarian anarchist if you don’t embrace libertarian anarchist means and ends. Period. You can be anything you want. You can be an astronaut, a fascist dictator, an opera singer or a school teacher. But if you don’t reject aggression as a principle, then it will be only coincidence those times when your means and ends line up with libertarian anarchism.
Based on the stuff you’ve written here in the last couple weeks, you’re a consequentialist. You’re not a libertarian anarchist, and any time your values align with libertarian anarchism, is strictly an accident. Those times where they match up are not intentional as your value scale is not based on ethics.
I believe the reverse is true. I am using the common US english dictionary definition for libertarianism. That definition does not define the why of the actions, it only defines the actions. I am unsure where you are getting your definition from but it is my opinion that the dictionary is generally the best source since it tends to follow the majority trend in terms of usage. Perhaps in time your definition may come into popular usage at which point you would be correct in using it that way but until that time I feel you are using the word in the way you want it to be define rather than how it is actually defined.
This appears to be an appeal to authority. Are you suggesting that because Walter Block stated that the NAP is a requirement of libertarianism then therefore it must be true? Or are you suggesting that the NAP is not an ethical philosophy and is instead a definition of action? If the latter, I would be interested in a cited source for the matter because everything I have read indicates that the NAP is an ethical philosophy and not a definition of action.
sigh
We can’t judge why. Even if someone says they agree with the NAP, doesn’t mean the NAP drives their actions. We can only judge action.
It is absolutely irrelevant why you would embrace non-aggression. It only matters that you do. And when you act consistently with the non-aggression principles, whether you are aware of the NAP or not, you are acting as a libertarian.
This is really, really, really simple stuff.
Your use of the dictionary is an appeal to authority. Your use of definitions which are popular are appeals to popularity.
All that matters for the purpose of debate is that we agree on a definition, we don’t need outside parties to validate those definitions.
We recently has this issue with Z. He didn’t understand what most of us meant by free market. When explained, his argument didn’t really have any teeth anymore. Most conflicts of understanding are because one or both parties refuse to settle on clear language.
How many people need to state the the NAP is a requirement of libertarianism before you agree? If every libertarian said so would you still disagree?
Do you also have coniptions everytime you read Mises and see him use “rational” in a way different from Websters?
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. Definitions are key to resolving many discussions. The reason I appeal to the dictionary is because it seems most reasonable to use definitions most widely accepted. We could make up words or redefine words to fit our needs for the situation but the this results in a significant reduction in efficiency of the conversation. Using reduction ad absurdum we can suggest that if you speak french and I speak spanish we could have a conversation spending the vast majority of our time defnining every word we use. However, if we both use english we can work with an already established set of definitions to convey our thoughts with. By using uncommon definitions for words it requires us to stop the conversation and define those words.
That being said, I am not particularly attached to any of my definitions and will concede to yours if it matters to you since I only care about the topic of discussion, not the means of discussion.
After doing some additional reading I have come across two new words (to me). Consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism. It seems that I am a consequentialist libertarian (as Liberty Student suggested above) while you guys seem to be deontological libertarians.
This allows us to conclude (it seems) that we can both be correct in our argumest that we are each respectively libertarian while at the same time having differing views of whether accepting money from the state is within our views.
As a consequentialist libertarian I see no problem with accepting money from the state. However, I can see how a deontological libertarian would have a probelm with it and believe that it goes against deontological libertarianism.
After learning of the difference between consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism I feel I can safely say that the NAP is a requirement of deontological libertarianism but it is not a requirement of consequentialist libertarianism.
Why not get food stamps? It will help you out, and certainly won’t violate your libertarianism. Go, my child. Go get your state handout and then get back on the internet to whine about state handouts given to other people. Cuz that’s really your problem with welfare… you personally aren’t getting enough of it.
No, you are mistaken… I am getting a lot of it. 
I would rather none was given out. However, if it is given out I would rather be on the receiving end. Currently I live off of state handouts alone. I have learned to game the system well enough to not have to actually do any real work to survive and have a reasonably high (relatively speaking) quality of life. None the less, I would prefer it if I no one got handouts (including myself). Yes, I would have to become a productive member of society but I personally feel that the benefits to no one getting handouts outweigh the benefits to me getting handouts.
And you don’t find that in any way hypocritical?
gross.
I have no problem with anyone taking handouts. I have a problem with people that advocate the material for the handouts being taken… e.g., you.
So me advocating for assisstance for people is worse than someone who is “against” it but takes it anyway. my stance is that assistance is helpful. Micah here and hte OP have proved my position. But yet they take yours.
it’s all a bunch of grade-A baloney. Keep justifying yourself. YOU’re not a welfare queen.
Praxeologically, if you tkae the money, you support welfare. Plain and simple. Your actions betray your words.
EDIT: actually that’s a straw man as well. I don’t advocate for taxation (the material being taken). Only that the assisstance is helpful to people. Im not the one here fooling myself.
That’s the problem with Marxists. Always trying to make their convictions sound correct by defining them as correct.