—“In the same way libertarians rally about welfare bad actors in terms of economics, libertarians are “welfare queens” in the sense that they want all the trappings of a high trust society and commons without their own participation in it. They’re Just welfare queens of the flip side of the coin.”—Zachary Bert
That’s why I stopped becoming a libertarian you have to have some type of restrictions but you don’t need odorous laws like we have today and are trying to be created.
Altho there certainly after Libertarians who feel entitled to things and not have to pay for them
Adam Jacob Robert Walker Mikey Lirón
A slave contributes to the wishes of his master, obligated by threat of violence or harm. He contributes for his own survival. A slave eats food in order to survive and surviving means enduring slavery. A slave has no choice other than to hope for an early death, opportunity for suicide, or chance to revolt and gain his freedom.
“This is no endorsement of it, nor is it an acceptance of obligation to contribute.”
This is the point the OP is making. Libertarians don’t contribute or accept the obligation to contribute when granted liberty. They do this by using the NAP (half truth) as an excuse to free ride and not contribute to the commons.
Curt’s question gets at the heart of it. What choice do you have? What incentive do sovereigns (those with a monopoly on violent coercion ie govt) have to grant you liberty if you don’t respect the commons created by those who granted it to you?
Why should those of with numbers, capital, and territorial control, let you live?
The Libertarians who agree to contribute to and respect the commons are probably Propertarians who just don’t know it yet. 😉