Putting this here so that I can cut and paste.
Social norms need to be treated as property (ie. defended with violence). Social norms are expesively created. We pay for them with opportunity costs every time we don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t defraud, help our neighbors.
The high trust society of Europe (really, North-Sea Europe) is the miracle that laid the foundation for modern civilization.
Rothbardianism creates a false binary of harm that preserves parasitism.
(Think of Jews benefitting from European law, and high trust, but maintaining separatism, and never sacrificing to contribute to the high trust society.)
Harm is really a gradient, not a binary. Focussing only on physical aggression and relegating lying, fraud by omission, cheating, and other anti-social behavior to a footnote on NAP, is an attempt by cheaters to prohibit retaliation.
This is why an-caps attract a minority of scoundrels. They correctly perceive it as a liscence to cheat and a prohibition on retaliation.
Hoppe realized the importance of social norms, but his reputation is tied to Rothbard’s, so he’s trying to preserve NAP and enforce social norms by voluntary exclusion. That’s good, if it works.
But really it is perfectly just to defend social norms with violence. We invested in the behavioral commons and need to protect our investment.
So libertarians fall into two categories. Some are trying to make the enforcement of the commons voluntary and prevent the mal incentives of bureaucracy. That’s good.
Other libertarians are denying a commons exists, or are active trying to prevent its emergence.
unlanded ethics of diaspora people — I will go to where other people have created property rights.
landed ethics of aristocracy — my family guards this wall. Your family will guard that wall. Inside we will enforce property rights.