> In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. > Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by whic

> In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. > Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave? If USG is the government then this is not libertarianism. If USG is corporation (ie private party) who is the LG then ? The world ? Lets say LG=World then is it USG the land owner ? I think not, so I dont have to leave if I own a land. > In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. Even in LG, you may have contacts of any scope but the contract with the LG would be very minimal. USC is not a libertarian constitution. > My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations. This does not follow from the fact that LG enforces private contracts. Its still upto you whether or not to sign away your freedoms. Nonetheless, Libertarianism would be big improvement from current state, and only slightly less from AnCap.