What does free mean if not freedom from hunger or freedom from want?
I'm shocked that I have to explain really basic libertarian concepts to Tom, like what the free market is.
*sigh*
Thats nice.
I can only think of a handful of prominent libertarians that don't believe in using force against a person who has violated someone else's property rights. I am not in the libertarian minority when I claim that victims or their heirs have a right to use force against aggressors. That is not incompatible with the NAP, is not unlibertarian, and certainly falls within the legitimate domain of the free market.
I'm shocked that you believe in a person being "objectively" better off. I don't know of any Austrian economists who would agree with you. If there were such thing as an objective better off, then people wouldn't trade. If shoes, cds, houses, and cars are always better than money, no one would buy them. In ever transaction, each participant thinks they will be better off.
You're being unhappy that I used the same logic in both a moral and "immoral" circumstance in unjustified. I can also claim that murderers think they will be better off for committing murder. Does that mean I condone murder? No. Its just simple economics.
And (onto another subject) I don't claim to hold all of the libertarian answers in the world and neither should you. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my claim that force can used against persons who have violated someone else's property rights. The NAP is the non AGGRESSION principle not the non FORCE principle.
I know from listening to FTL that most of the hosts don't believe in using force against property right violators after the fact, but many others do. Do the people at Mises, CATO, and FEE have it all wrong? Do you need to "explain really basic libertarian concepts to Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises?" Yes I know they're dead.
Give me a break with the more-libertarian-than-thou nonsense.