I don't understand your question.
That's what libertarianism is founded upon, self-ownership.
"Ethics - the validity of the principle of self-ownership and original appropriation - is demonstrably not dependent and contingent upon agreement or contract; and the universality claim connected with Rothbard's libertarianism is not affected in the slightest by the circumstance that moral discussants may or may not always come to an agreement or contract. Ethics is the logical-praxeological presupposition - in Kantian terminology: die Bedingung der Moeglichkeit - rather than the result of agreement or contract. The principles of self-ownership and original appropriation make agreement and contract - including that of not agreeing and contracting - possible. Set in motion and stimulated by the universal experience of conflict, moral discussion and argument can discover, reconstruct, explicate, and formulate the principles of self-ownership and original appropriation, but their validity in no way depends on whether or not this is the case, and if so whether or not these formulations then find universal assent." - Hoppe, Intro to TEOL.
I don't believe all human beings are capable of self ownership or self government, if that's what you're asking.
.
Myth #6: Libertarians believe that every person knows his own interests best.
Now I see the problem, your brain is too simple.
Oh, whoops.. you seem to have mistaken me dumbing things down for you.. as inadequacy on my behalf. My bad.
You equate the market with human nature, society and a self sustaining political system. Ignoring the fact that the market is not self sustaining, it relies on assumptions such as recognition and enforcement of human rights, property protection, anti-monopolistic distribution of resources, all of which are NOT a given in real life, never was. This is why you think you don't need a change in human nature, you don't know it.
Citing a book doesn't make you right, citing reality works better. If you can cite reality, why rely on books I've not read?
"The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents." - MNR
"While the purely free and laissez-faire society arises unselfconsciously where people are given free rein to exert their creative energies, statism has been the dominant principle throughout history. Where State despotism already exists, then liberty can only arise from a self-conscious ideological movement that wages a protracted struggle against statism, and reveals to the mass of the public the grave flaw in its acceptance of the propaganda of the ruling classes. The role of this "revolutionary" movement is to mobilize the various ranks of the oppressed masses, and to desanctify and delegitimize the rule of the State in their eyes." - Capitalism versus Statism, MNR (
http://mises.org/story/3735) *Good para's preceding this
.
"The actions which comprise the formation of government are not market actions."
Fair, then I would say your idea of self government is a bad theory, because it's not worked in practice (if it did, it would never stop working, if it's currently working, then I don't need to know about it).
You still don't seem to get it.
"My entire argument, then, claims to be an impossibility proof. But not, as the mentioned critics seem to think, a proof that means to show the impossibility of certain empirical events so that it could be refuted, by empirical evidence. Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to propositionally justify non-libertarian principles without falling into contradictions."
For whatever such a thing is worth (and I'll come to this shortly), it should be clear that empirical evidence has absolutely no bearing on it. So what if there is slavery, the Gulag, taxation? The proof concerns the issue that claiming such institutions can be justified, involves a performative contradiction. It is purely intellectual in nature, like logical, mathematical, or praxeological proofs." ~ Hoppe, pg 8
You're currently guilty of assuming perfect beings. The Infallibist fallacy comes to mind. A variant on the Nirvana fallacy. "...it commits what we shall hereafter refer to as the “infallibilist fallacy”—i.e., the equation of epistemological terms, such as “knowledge” and “certainty,” with a standard of infallibility, which is completely inappropriate to man and to the science of knowledge in general." - George H. Smith
Humans err, which is.. part of their nature.
I do? So I can be a kid posting online every day arguing with people over citations?
My life and income speaks for itself, because I understand the market, I understand humans, and I've used it to the best of my advantages. I don't seek to change human nature, nor am I afraid anybody will. I don't need to educate people about what I know about capitalism or property, because the "science" I am knowledgeable of works regardless of what THEY believe.
I hope the knowledge you have has given you advantages in becoming rich, successful and happy. Otherwise I seriously wonder what value it is to you for "being right". Like I said, I don't care if I am right according to some kid on the internet, I know what I've done for myself, and I regret none of it.
Quite amusing the hypocrisy here. There's a thing called demonstrated preference in economics. Or in laymens terms, 'actions speak louder than words', your actions dictate you care. Care enough to respond anyway hahah.
So... you knew about the housing bubble before it burst? You've been buying gold and commodities for ages now? Yeah?
.
