Wow, yeah, that was a long post, I do get carried away sometimes. And my summary is pretty confusing, sorry about that.
Let me explain my understanding of the terms thick and thin. Thick and thin are similar terms to left and right in that they refer to a libertarian’s style or flavor, rather than being a modifier for what the word libertarian actually means. Thick/thin/left/right… the NAP and associated libertarian principles remain intact whatever. The left-right spectrum and the thick-thin spectrum refer to two different things within libertarianism, though they are sometimes conflated. I referred to Hoppe and Long being on opposite sides of the left-right spectrum, but I’m not sure which one of them would be considered thinner. They are both pretty thin, meaning they refrain from making broader sociological points and generally stick to libertarianism.
The thinnest libertarian would probably be Walter Block. Perhaps this is why Block doesn’t give Clayton the warm-fuzzies. His style is too thin for Clayton. Block sticks to the NAP and doesn’t bring in any cultural values or anything beyond what libertarianism says. That post of Clayton is an example of a libertarian being thick, if you pardon the expression, or writing from a thick perspective. Clayton’s saying something about social theory - that prostitution ought to be ‘in the shadows’ even when it is legal - that libertarianism says nothing about, because it has nothing to do with the NAP.
To someone being thin, it makes no difference whether the service being discussed is prostitution or hairdressing: both are identically non-violations of the NAP, and both industries would be better if they were free markets. That’s the thin, cold analysis. This analysis isn’t left or right, because those terms only apply to thick arguments.
Clayton’s thick argument in this case would be considered ‘right’ (conservative) rather than ‘left’ (modern liberal). A libertarian who wants to engage in a thick argument and who has the view, contra Clayton, that prostitution should be ‘in the light’, might counter Clayton’s argument, and he’d be arguing from a leftist perspective. His viewpoint would be described as left-libertarian and Clayton’s as right-libertarian.
I prefer staying thin most of the time. Nothing wrong with making thick arguments, as long as it’s clear you’re venturing outside of the strict realm of libertarianism and are making a ‘cultural’ point. I’m not saying these distinctions are particularly useful - it’s probably a case of over-labelling - but I did just want to say that they have meaning, at least to me.