Steve, I disagree with your interpretation of the SoP:
http://libertarianmajority.net/does-the-sop-mandate-zero-agression-absolutism
http://libertarianmajority.net/does-the-sop-mandate-zero-agression-absolutism
The fundamental issue here is that not all libertarians agree precisely on what all our individual rights are. While there are quite a few free variables in libertarian theory, the SoP does point out the vast common ground we hold against nanny statists:
- mutual non-aggression among individuals
- absolute entitlement to the fruits of one's labor
- freedom of communication
- prohibition of force initiation against others
- opposition to government confiscation of property
- prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation
- no interference in voluntary private contracts
- no sacrificing of lives or property to benefit others
- governments must not violate individual rights
I just don't see anything in the text that says we have an individual right not to have any government ever enforce a rule for the protection of rights in a way that we can't opt out of. For me the canonical examples would be mandatory (but contestable) government fines for measurably polluting the commons, or for consuming it in a way that measurably reduces its ability to sustain such consumption. Reasonable libertarians can disagree on such topics, and that's why it's good that the 315 words of the SoP don't purport to decompress into a complete body of libertarian law.
Maybe I would understand your position better if you could explain, in all seriousness, why you don't think the LP should be called the Anarchist Party.
