No, it's not. At its core is harm to your person or property.
Discussion
Allowing degeneracy into the culture and having foreign powers control and influence my nation is allowed under libertarianism
Eventually it reaches your doorstep and then its too late
Abdicating hierarchy just means you get another, worse hierarchy.
Libertarianism is a delusional, suicidal position. Not serious people.
It's not about eliminating hierarchy. That's "libertarian socialism" that claims that bullshit.
You all want to weaken the hierarchy which poses the same problem.
I love hierarchy, idk what you're talking about, fuckface. Depending on the hierarchy I guess. Idk, I'm not obsessed with it like you are. My obsession is true power, the power that comes from being true to the principles of nature and not making blind assumptions all day long. Methinks you project your own foolishness on everyone else. I crave the power to be at peace, to be free from the stupidity, the fighting for scraps, and the pitifulness of living subservient to fallacy and the whims of other people. The power to create. That power comes from nonaggression. That power comes from intellectual curiosity. That power comes from humility. You stand no chance against this universe, yet you continue to assume. Every assumption is a denial of reality, and in this case, the reality of the utter futility of your own errant cause. You try to isolate yourself from it by projecting it onto other people. You have a lot to learn about how the market functions. Open a book.
Everyone knows how the market works and anyone can point out to you how the NAP is a hollowing of organic hierarchy.
You believe the libsocs? Sad. How very sad. You're just as gullible as them.
I believe in putting libertarians in camps
Again, thank you for the compliment. I didn't know I was that much of a threat to you, fucktard.
Hierarchy of authority over a person's property is the only hierarchy we want to flatten. Everything else is fair game and will step in to assure stability. Hierarchy in general is fine and is not at all eliminated by free markets in any all-encompassing way. But I appreciate the comment that you think we're that much of a danger to you.
No, it only allows it if you allow it. But you don't get to control other people's property. Culture is mediated by the marketplace. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you don't get to control other people's purchases, either. If you don't like what someone else is doing with or on thier property (or buying), you're limited to persuasion.
Lol
Naive to the evils of the world
The Divine Lawgiver was not.
Compatibility Issues:
https://credomag.com/2021/05/the-concept-of-libertarian-free-will-why-christians-must-reject-it/
You're making a category mistake. The word 'libertarian' in 'libertarian free will' in the context of theology has almost nothing to do with the political philosophy known (now) as 'libertarianism.' I'm aware of Credo Mag, and am reading a book even now by its Editor-in-Chief, Matthew Barrett. Terms in one discipline rarely translate to others. I thoroughly reject, in theological terms, 'libertarian free will.' But that's not what we're talking about.
1. Christians are pilgrims, not ground-conquerors in the geopolitical sense. At least, _not yet_. This is the historic amillennial position.
2. The (institutional) church is not to grasp after the sword. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. We win the world by our _words_ (namely, the gospel).
3. Christians _as Christians_ are free to take up political office, but are not permitted to use it as an instrument of conversion or even extension of the church proper, but to uphold just and wholesome laws.
4. The libertarian political philosophy is little more than the '2nd table' of the 10 commandments: don't hurt people (6th), don't take their stuff (8th), and honor your contracts (7th and 9th). These are applied in the civil realm--on the 'horizontal' level, so to speak--between man and men. The explicitly religious commandments (they're all religious, but follow me for a moment), the so-called '1st table', which are 'vertical'--between man and God directly, are not (or, at least, should never) the jurisdiction of the State. At least not until the King returns. Then, we have theocracy again.
I am well aware that atrocities have happened, and will continue, until the Lord returns. That does not mean we interpret Scripture according to our own worldly wisdom. Christ rebuked his disciples for that kind of thinking. When he said, 'not yet'--he meant it. We would do well to believe (and obey) him.
You're naive to your own evils as well as to the functioning of a marketplace. Even if you're unable to fully control anyone else, you can establish or choose to live in private communities that exclude "degenerate behavior." If your way of living is actually sustainable, and I presume you think it is, then it will succeed and flourish and be protected from all the stuff you don't like. You're shooting yourself in the foot. You are extremely unlikely to succeed in the political marketplace, but as an individual associating with other losers like yourself, provided you don't harm anyone, you can exclude whoever the fuck you want. Read Hoppe.
I say this for the same reasons that I say Bitcoin and nostr are for everyone and try to show them why it would help them. I may disagree with you, but BOTH of us end up happier when we embrace it, and when we live in a world that operates by it. Your actions, utilizing the technology that enables a greater degree of free association AND physical removal, support my theory.
Also, your assumption that there would be culture creep without forcibly stopping it through aggression betrays how weak you feel your own culture is. If it really is so pathetic as to need daddy government, isn't it a "cuck ideology?"
By this alone we can conclude that either your culture sucks, your measuring stick of being a "cuck" sucks, or your assumption that government style aggression is required to enforce it is wrong. You have to believe at least one of these alternatives to be consistent.