from Alex Merced
I’m Libertarian and I’m for Free Exchange, which are not exactly me saying the same thing twice.
When I say I’m libertarian, I’m just saying I value an individuals right to their property and don’t want me or others to aggress on their property, mainly cause I don’t want anyone to do that to me so it only makes sense I should approach others the way I want them to approach me. Although this does not imply any particular doctrine of what is the optimal property rights framework, economic system, or make up of society… just that I don’t want people to aggress on each others property (which includes you body in just about all property right frameworks)
When I say I’m for free exchange, I am making a normative statement, that a world where the barriers to exchange between individuals are as little as possible will yield better social results. Thus, I do believe in removing barriers that come from aggression (basically government intervention, organized crime and cartelization, etc.) but I also believing in making non-aggressive (so fixing without policy) efforts to remove non-aggressive barriers to exchange (social intolerance, lack of access to information, technological barriers).
Although Libertarianism and Free Exchange line up when it comes removing aggressive barriers to exchange, Libertarianism in it’s purest broadest has nothing to say about what or whether anything should be done about non-aggressive barriers.
Point I’m saying is ones own personal philosophical framework is never made up of one principal or value, but of many.
And honestly, keeping them separate is probably for the better since it makes working through problems and communicating clearer and easier.