Well, I wasn't really planning on getting into this whole thing in any depth, but I definitely hear your responses. And that is unquestionably the optimistic, revisionist version of contemporary Ron Paul-ian libertarianism. So I get that, but its still a non starter for me, and the responses to my characterizations don't carry much weight for me, because there is no mechanism to introduce a kind of social-categorical-imperative, "if not everyone involved in this action consents, it's wrong." And the only way in which this kind of liberty has EVER existed in America, it was done so under the auspices of slavery, which is what enabled landed aristocracies in the South. These southern slave owners, incidentally, wouldn't disagree with the principle you name at all and even fought a war to preserve it as a principle across society––they very conveniently just saw slaves as non-persons. That's a pretty gigantic loophole to leave there. But suffice it to say, I've never met a Ron Paul acolyte who never wore clothing made by hands compelled by market forces or sweatshop labor policies in other countries, or ate at restaurants staffed by people who were compelled by circumstance to work there, or a thousand other examples where only the only agents consenting to actions or systems into which people are caught up are those making money. So, this "moral" can't be that deeply held.

Its a nice, egalitarian and utopian idea. And that's where I have a lot of respect for especially young libertarian idealists. But once you come to understand the world in a complex way (I'm sorry that you didn't address the complexity I was implying in your response––I would be more interested in hearing what you have to say about global market forces, consumption of goods, how to cope with non-sustainable and limited resources, etc.), to suppose that everyone in the 7-billion-individual world (or the 300 million individual nation) can live with the same kind of unconstrained liberties enjoyed by (pardon reintroducing him) the Andrew Jacksons of the world.

I don't see a nation or a world that can cope with everyone living isolationist lives that never ever bear on one another, and I do see a nation that disenfranchises many to enrich a very select few. I accept that there is a certain inevitability of imposition of will in the world that we inhabit. I'm very much okay with using the mechanisms of a democratically-originating state and ideology-shifting ideas and intellectual discourse to disempower those who have always benefitted and empower those who have always been marginalized.