Since I gave up my hope for Libertarianism (freedom with statism don’t mix), I’ve changed my "troll" tune to using anarcho-capitalism as often as I can when it is on-topic, even in real life discussions with friends, family and others.
I think that Dada is misconstruding what libertarianism means, or, at least, the way I see it. A libertarian is one who denies the validity of aggression as a means to achieve ends. If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, you end up with radical individualism: the voluntary society. Tis means the free exchange of goods, given the division of labor, between willing participants; it is the condition where both of the exchanging parties value the other's offer greater than what they are giving up. Thus, to me, libertarianism means property-based freedom. This is what Rothbard called anarcho-capitalism.
This does not mean that there would be an "economic man" whose purpose is to maximize profits, but rather acknowledging that every person has ends and that, given scarcity, will choose between them in order to (try to) reach those ends. Whether it is a business, love, sports, computers, it's all the same thing: human beings act.
I agree with most of what Dada says and I'm an avid reader of his gold blog yet I don't share that libertarianism must exclude anarcho-capitalism. If anything, it's the opposite. The non-anarchist libertarian has to be the one to justify his aggressive position. It is up to the statists, even the minimal ones, to show that the use of force against innocent people is coherent. I see no need to group statists with "libertarian" the way that Dada uses it. The term can be semantically abused, yes, but that does not mean that even in today's loaded terminology, that it is already incompatible with market anarchy.
The modern libertarian anarchist movement, partly grounded by Misesian epistemology and praxeological economics, natural rights or argumentation ethics, is today undergoing a renaissance of sorts. Rothbard, Huerta de Soto, Hoppe and thousands of their students and intellectual heirs continue to build on the tradition of liberty firmly rooted in individual freedom, self-ownership and property rights.
Thus, when in a modern setting one hears of "anarcho-capitalism" it merely assumes the absence of state, politics and forcible government. It respects the person, the right to contract, the freedom of association, the ability to own scarce resources such as land, to delegate authority, establish communities and enact policies on justly acquired property. (It's also possible to be a market anarchist without being a libertarian. People such as David Friedman (son of Milton) have argued for market anarchy in merely utilitarian terms: that it would be more efficient.)
So, unlike Dada's post, libertarianism is not incoherent with anarcho-capitalism.
