"We are definitely in a time to challenge following God or government. And government is generally ungodly. God’s law trumps man’s law." Wishing to remain unnamed Christian freedom fighter.
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/anarcho-capitalism-ultimate-guidehttp://www.ancapfaq.com/index.html
Dispensational Anarchism refers to a belief system that combines the theological framework of dispensationalism, which interprets the Bible as divided into distinct periods of God's interaction with humanity, with anarchist principles that reject authority and governance in a Statist context. This perspective emphasizes interpretation of scripture based on the idea of a priesthood of all believers; without a clergy leading to a more decentralized approach to faith and practice.
"Putting it roughly, if all men are human, if all bipeds classifiable as homo sapiens are human beings, social harmony and a general progress in civilization will be far better brought about by methods of free agreement and voluntary association than by constraint."
Albert Jay Nock
Anarcho-Conservatism, or Conservative Anarchism, shortened to AnCon, is an ideology occupying a variable position in bottom two quadrants that advocates for a stateless society that upholds
Traditional values and respects traditional hierarchies. They believe that conservative tenants should be so enforced on the society that the government doesn’t need to exist to enforce traditional values.
The term 'conservative anarchism' has been used in regard to a number of Religious Anarchists who support conservative cultural doctrines and norms out of religious belief. The core of these types of thinkers have been Christian notably Catholic but also have included Jewish figures, it could theoretically include practically any religious doctrine.
The term 'Conservative Anarchism' has been employed to describe a set of views which combine the support of values commonly associated with the Bourgeois socio-economic class while also being sceptical towards the power of the state, favoring, but not limited to: private property, a strict work ethic and nuclear or nuclear-like family structures.
One of the first uses of the term with this definition in mind have been in the relation to the Classical Liberal thinker Herbert Spencer, with Russian marxist theorist Georgi Plekhanov calling him '... nothing but a conservative Anarchist' in his book Anarchism and Socialism.[12] With the full quote being:
The “father of Anarchy”, the “immortal” Proudhon, bitterly mocked at those people for whom the revolution consisted of acts of violence, the exchange of blows, the shedding of blood. The descendants of the “father”, the modern Anarchists, understand by revolution only this brutally childish method. Everything that is not violence is a betrayal of the cause, a foul compromise with “authority”. The sacred bourgeoisie does not know what to do against them. In the domain of theory they are absolutely impotent with regard to the Anarchists, who are their own “enfants terribles”. The bourgeoisie was the first to propagate the theory of “laissez faire”, of dishevelled individualism. Their most eminent philosopher of today, Herbert Spencer, is nothing but a conservative Anarchist.
Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov, Anarchism and Socialism (1895)
The term was later used again in a similar sense to describe the Old Right Libertarian author Albert Jay Nock, who favoured a form of Philosophical Anarchism while also being a staunch supporter of Classical Liberalism, believing the so-called ' Liberalism' of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a betrayal of the doctrine. Nock was the first person to use the term ' libertarian' within a right-wing context.
One of the most well-known supporters of this type of Anarcho-Conservatism is the German economist of the Austrian school of economics, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
One of Hoppe's central points is that the 'traditional bourgeois family life' is one of the historically best and most prosperous lifestyles (as well as the best for the continual sustenance of a libertarian social order) which should be encouraged, especially via ostracism, employing covenant communities which may exclude those who violate common values.[13] Hoppe believes that the existance of this lifestyle allows the existance of other lifestyles and therefore 'deviants' should not be aggressive towards those who share the bourgeois lifestyle:
"All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle — i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns — that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labour?"
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right (2018)
Tory Anarchism
'Tory Anarchism' was a term coined by George Orwell (The author of 1984) to describe his political ideology during much of the time he wrote for the literary journal New Adelphi. W.I.P.
Anarcho-conservatism or conservative anarchism or tory anarchism is a political philosophy and ideology that combines anarchist politics and conservative values.
Anarcho-conservatism opposes the state and all government control, while supporting social conservative policies. Anarcho-conservatives advocate the abolition of the state and the wholesale replacement of state law by moral laws. Differently from social anarchists and individualist anarchists, anarcho-conservatives don't oppose all authority, but in consonance with them, they oppose the authority of the modern nation state, which they deem artificial.
For instance, conservative anarchists might oppose drug use and pornography, on moral grounds, while at the same time opposing their prohibition through government.
This absolute rejection of the state legislation is what differentiates anarcho-conservatism from libertarianism conservatism. As conservatives typically do, conservative anarchists support traditional family structures and, much like all right-libertarian orientations, support gun and property rights.
These however take a backseat to traditional and religious morality, if a conflict between them arises. In particular, this differentiates anarcho-conservatism from anarcho-capitalism.
Like all libertarians, conservative anarchists oppose state coercion, and like all right-libertarians, they don't oppose natural, traditional or socioeconomic hierarchies. In fact, they typically welcome them. Anarcho-conservatism has much in common with paleolibertarianism, except for the support of right wing populists in political elections.
Christian anarchists, Orthodox Jewish anarchists and religious Muslim anarchists are anarcho-conservatives. Like all anarchists, they may recognise them, and live under their rule, but reject and resist their authority peacefully.
Anarcho-conservatism is closely associated with libertarian conservatism and anarcho-capitalism.
First, we need to define our terms. By “conservatism” I mean the Anglo-American conservative tradition. Much has been written about conservatism since the end of the Second World War, but no writer has arrived at a more succinct and illuminating definition of conservatism than Russell Kirk. His writings on the nature of conservatism and the continuity of the conservative tradition remain the definitive works on the subject.
I am drawn in particular to Kirk’s conception of conservatism not as a system, but as an inclination of sentiment and habit of mind:
Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word ‘conservative’ as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
Later on in the essay from which these quotes are taken, Kirk lays out ten conservative principles that give content to, but do not exhaustively define, conservatism. But I do not want to go into these principles in detail, as many others have already done. The important point from the above passage is that conservatism, as an adjective, can be viewed as a modifier.
In fact, it would not be improper to classify Edmund Burke, the first and greatest conservative in Kirk’s sense, as a conservative liberal. Burke after all was a Whig in Parliament, a defender of the post-1688 political order in Great Britain, who often spoke out in favor of the American colonists during the Revolutionary War and self-consciously drew several principles of his thought from the less rationalist strains of the Enlightenment. If “conservative liberal” is not a contradiction in terms, perhaps “conservative anarchist” need not be, either.
Of course this depends on the definition of anarchism. This term is quite difficult to pin down, because it has been used to describe many different, and often contradictory, proposed social orders, as well as the movements dedicated to achieving them. The definition of anarchy I use here is systematic opposition to the modern state. “State” is also difficult to define, but a modification of Weber’s conception—the state is the organization that possesses a monopoly on the creation and enforcement of social rules—strikes a good balance between breadth and precision. Political thinkers across the millennia discuss the nature and purpose of government.
But it is important to note that Roman jurists, medieval Schoolmen, and philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment based their political commentary on observations of quite different institutional landscapes. The institutions these writers lived under varied so greatly that we would lose more than we would gain were we to force them all into a single concept. In fact, the term “the state” as applied to a unitary, corporate organization that governs a territory probably originates with Machiavelli in the 16th century. Accordingly, the state should not be equated with formal governance institutions, nor public authority per se.
So to make a complicated matter as simple as possible, an anarchist is somebody who regards the existing, post-Westphalian form of the state as illegitimate. This does not commit the anarchist to any particular course of political action. An anarchist need not be a revolutionary, for example.
Nor does it mean the anarchist is opposed to all forms of rules and hierarchies. Anarchists frequently make a distinction between government and governance. All human societies need the latter, both as a means of checking the passions and inculcating virtuous habits. But the former is simply one way of achieving the latter, and historically considered, a relatively young and untested one at that.
A Skepticism Regarding Centralized Authority
With these definitions of conservatism and anarchism, several points of contact become apparent. I will discuss three that strike me as the most salient and interesting. First, within conservatism there is a robust tradition of hostility to centralized domination and control. We do not need to consult any esoteric sources to see this. The Western canon exhibits it plainly. For example, consider the story of the formation of the kingdom of Israel, recounted in 1 Samuel 8. The Israelites have demanded of the prophet Samuel that he make them a king to govern them. This distresses Samuel, who prays to God for guidance. God regards the people of Israel’s demand for a king as a lack of faith in His providence. He gives Samuel a warning to take back to the people of Israel:
"These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day."
This warning is pretty clear about the domineering nature of the institution Israel seeks to create. Despite this, Israel remains obstinate. Samuel, with God’s approval, reluctantly grants their request. Much of the Old Testament details Israel’s struggle with this Faustian bargain.
https://discoursesonliberty.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/images-of-freedom-anarchism-and-conservatism-the-inevitability-of-anarcho-conservatism/
For the sake of preserving liberty and tradition, conservatives should reject the state’s legitimacy.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-true-conservatism-means-anarchy/
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” These words are Patrick Henry’s, uttered in the course of his famous oration known for its powerful closing words “give me liberty or give me death.”
Although Henry probably did not intend it as a sociopolitical axiom, the Anglo-American conservative tradition has adopted it as such. Conservatives rightly look to the past to influence their views of the future. Change in the basic structure of society’s institutions is inherently perilous, and must be guided by the “lamp of experience” lest reform lose its way.
But experience accumulates as time marches on. Proposed changes to public life that seem radical and dangerous in one era can embody wisdom and stewardship in another. Applied conservatism is nothing less than continual constitutional craftsmanship. And in that context, “constitution” refers not to whatever is formally drawn up in a document, but the actual procedures and practices that comprise a society’s public sphere.
In this spirit, I propose a position that seems extraordinary, but I am convinced is vindicated by historical experience: the state is a fundamentally anti-conservative force, and in order to preserve the good, true, and beautiful things in society, it’s got to go. In short, I argue that conservatives should seriously consider anarchism.
I realize such a position seems absurd, at least on its surface. Conservatism has long held that the existing political order deserves respect precisely because it is the result of custom, habit, and experience. Massive changes in basic social institutions almost always create chaos. How then can one be both conservative and anarchist?
First, let’s reflect on the nature of conservatism. Its master theoretician remains Russell Kirk, the founder of post-war American conservatism. I am fond of this Kirk quote: “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.”
Thus conservatism is really a habit of mind or orientation of sentiment. It is a way of thinking about man, society, and the relationship between the two. It has much more to say about how we treat these topics than what we say about them. It would be wrong to conclude that any position can be conservative so long as it is theorized in the “right” way. But it nonetheless remains true that conservatism is primarily a modifier, an adjective.
This is why the phrase “conservative liberal” need not be a contradiction in terms. In fact, many of the greatest thinkers in the conservative tradition—Acton, Tocqueville, even Burke himself—are best classified under this label.
Now let’s consider anarchy. Kirk had this to say about that particular form of social organization: “When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy.
Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.” Thus anarchy is equated with lawlessness. It is obvious, then, that conservatives cannot embrace a social organization that repudiates all governance institutions. Such institutions are necessary and proper to constrain man’s baser impulses and channel his potentially destructive passions towards the common good.
But which institutions? There are a myriad of ways human societies can be governed.
In fact, for most of human history, societies were not governed by states as we currently know them. The word “state,” meaning a unitary actor that embodies the formal apparatus of government, probably originated with Machiavelli. Prior to the rise of the state, which began during the Renaissance but reached its culmination with the end of the Thirty Years’ War in the mid-17th century, Europe was governed by several authorities whose jurisdiction was fractured, overlapping, and concurrent.
The polylegal system of the High Middle Ages, in which the authority of kings, local nobility, trade guilds, free cities, and the Roman Catholic Church competed and often checked the abuses of each other, is an important example and one that should be of obvious interest to conservatives.
Thus an anarchist is not one who opposes law and order. Nor is an anarchist a violent revolutionary. An anarchist opposes the specific institution that claims the right to provide these important social goods: the state. And a conservative anarchist opposes the state on the grounds that it, by its nature, is hostile to the goods and practices necessary not only for law and order, but also for a flourishing associational life on the part of its citizenry.
Conservative anarchism is not a contradiction in terms, but a recognition that conservative goals are systematically disfavored by modern institutions of formal government.
Establishing this claim requires digging in to what makes a state a state. Many have quibbled with Max Weber’s famous definition; none have proposed a better one. The state is the entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion within a specific geographical territory. The monopoly aspect is crucial.
Precisely because the state is sovereign, both de facto and de jure, whoever captures the state is in a position to affect all other social institutions and practices. This is not to claim that political fiat can instantly re-order civil society. Instead it is the recognition that the state, by legally favoring some interests within its jurisdiction while disfavoring others, tilts the playing field such that, over time, the favored interests gain wealth, power, and prestige, while the disfavored interests lose it.
What interests will have a comparative advantage at capturing the state? Especially in democratic societies, political coalitions whose goal is to liquidate existing orders and put new ones in their place will be more adept at getting and keeping power. For one, liquidating existing orders provides access to material wealth that can be redistributed to the supporters of the political coalition.
But the sources of wealth do not have to be material. Political movements organized to diminish the status of existing cultural institutions, such as those of traditional religions, also provide benefits to those movements’ supporters. Status is zero-sum: if cultural mores change such that traditionalists are seen as supporting an outdated way of life, while radical innovators are seen as the champions of justice and progress, then the latter will have acquired a benefit from political organization, one that in many contexts is seen as more valuable than mere mammon.
This explains why the state is almost always at the forefront of social innovation. Precisely because of its monopoly on force, it is the perfect tool for radical reformers to employ as a means to advance their social engineering projects. As I have argued elsewhere:
Historically, there has been no more radical…innovator and destroyer of intermediary institutions than the state. From the state-building projects of early modernity, to the absolutist periods in England and on the Continent, to nationalist aspirations in the late nineteenth century and the totalitarian regimes of the early twentieth, the state has been singularly hostile to the primary institutions and folkways that constitute a nation and are the proper objects of its primary loyalty. …It was the state, and the massive force at its disposal, that was ultimately responsible for the terrible social leveling that has occurred in some form since the French Revolution.
It was the state that tried, and often succeeded, at erasing any other sources of man’s loyalty, rendering him as a mere cog in the social machine, with no value or dignity except that derived from utility to the state. It took Constant’s “liberty of the ancients” and stripped it of its few redeeming graces, creating an engine of death and destruction the likes of which the world had never seen.
Conservatives have gradually come around to two troubling conclusions.
The first is that, over time, they lose and progressives win. At best, conservatives temporarily stall progressives in their dismantling projects, but even when progressives win slowly, they are still winning. The second is that the Overton window shifts left with each passing generation, meaning conservatives are left scrambling to re-package their arguments in a form that is publicly acceptable, while progressives enjoy normative and cultural continuity. Given these facts, it’s no wonder that conservatives are left wondering why they can’t seem to hold the line, let alone advance.
While not sufficient, a necessary part of the explanation is that the state is constitutionally hostile to conservatism. This may not have been evident in 1648 or 1783. But it is now. For the sake of preserving ordered liberty and protecting inherited faith and folkways, conservatives should reject the state’s legitimacy. Failure to do so is fighting a war on the enemy’s terms.
Hoppeanism, sometimes also referred to as Conservative Anarcho-Capitalism, is a Culturally right-wing tendency within Anarcho-Capitalism which puts emphasis on the importance of exclusionary behaviour (ostracism), communitarianism, social conservatism (and its compatibility and complementation with libertarianism)
Despite being named after the German economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the ideology itself can be tracked back before Hoppe, to the founder of Anarcho-Capitalism, Murray Rothbard, as well as Lew Rockwell, in the form of the Paleolibertarian movement (although generally distinguished from the wider movement by being fundamentally Anarcho-Capitalist, instead of just generally). Hoppe having done some particular contributions, although these were generally also recognized by Rothbard, making it sort of redundant to call Hoppeanism an ideology of its own due to the fact that it overlaps with Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism almost entirely. The ideology is prominent within and associated with the think tank Mises Institute.
Moderate Hoppeanism has Hoppean beliefs but at a less extreme level. Hoppeanism advocates for the elimination of the state, while Moderate Hoppeanism advocates for a
minimal state.
Hoppeanism is against democracy and even though not a monarchist ideology itself, Hoppe says that a monarchy is a lesser evil compared to democracy.
Moderate Hoppeanism on the other hand is critical of democracy but doesn’t necessarily support its abolishment, preferring to reform it.
Hoppeanism is against immigration and multiculturalism altogether, while Moderate Hoppeanism supports lessening immigration and multiculturalism.
Hoppeanism supports physical removal, so to speak, of leftists, hedonists and homosexuals, while Moderate Hoppeanism promotes but doesn't necessarily force segregation with them. Hoppeanism supports urbism while Moderate Hoppeanism supports localism.
https://polcompball.wikitide.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_Right
Ron Paul is a pro-life states' rights libertarian, also known as a paleolibertarian. Paleolibertarians advocate a limited role of government as well as supporting low taxes, free markets, strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believed violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul was the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He always voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.
Ron Paul is noted for his authorship of the We the People Act, an act which removed the ability of the US Supreme Court to hear cases involving discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. He is also noted for submitting several bills banning abortion.
Paul wants to "reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic." He rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government, and advocates a strong non-interventionist foreign policy.
He voted against the Iraq War in 2002 and has offered alternatives such as granting the President authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and arming pilots. He is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War.
Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.
In the May 3, 2007, GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as president, he would seek the immediate abolition of the IRS and the abolition of the income tax.
As Congressman, he has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by the repeal of the 16th Amendment which created the income tax. Ron Paul supports a return to the gold standard of currency particularly newer theorized pure strain gold.
Paul supported WikiLeaks and the legalization of Cannabis.
Paul is a defender of Homeschooling.
Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism founded by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement’s attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.
“Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is ‘paleo’ because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of ‘policy options.’ Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What’s more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.” – Lew Rockwell
Ron Paul, longtime Texas congressman. His views have resonated strongly with voters of all stripes, but many among those who consider themselves fans do not know that his principled philosophy is essentially paleolibertarianism.
Paleolibertarian anarchism combines elements of paleolibertarianism, which emphasizes traditional values and minimal government, with anarchism's advocacy for a stateless society. This ideology seeks to merge free-market principles with a rejection of state authority, promoting individual liberty and cultural conservatism.
Paleolibertarian minarchism is a political ideology that combines the principles of minarchism, which advocates for a minimal state limited to protecting individual rights, with paleolibertarianism, which emphasizes traditional cultural values and a strong opposition to government intervention.
This approach seeks to unite libertarians and paleoconservatives in promoting free markets and limited government while maintaining a focus on cultural conservatism.
Paleolibertarian localism emphasizes the importance of local governance and community autonomy while advocating for minimal federal intervention. This approach combines traditional cultural values with libertarian principles, promoting self-governance at the local level.
Neolibertarian localism is a political philosophy that combines libertarian principles with a focus on local governance, advocating for decentralized decision-making to enhance individual freedoms and community autonomy. It emphasizes the importance of local governments in providing a framework for rights and property while allowing for experimentation with libertarian policies at a smaller scale.
Neolibertarian foreign policy combines libertarian principles with a pragmatic approach to international relations, advocating for minimal military intervention while promoting free markets and individual liberties globally. It emphasizes non-aggression and prioritizes diplomatic solutions over military action, aiming to protect human rights without extensive government involvement in foreign conflicts.
Paleolibertarian foreign policy emphasizes non-interventionism and opposes military engagement that is not directly related to defending U.S. territory. It advocates for a reduction in military spending and a focus on protecting individual liberties rather than pursuing global military dominance.
Neolibertarian minarchism is a political philosophy that advocates for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state, which focuses on protecting individual rights and enforcing contracts while limiting government intervention in personal and economic matters. This approach combines elements of neoliberalism with libertarian principles, emphasizing free markets and individual liberties.
Neolibertarian anarchism combines elements of libertarianism and anarchism, advocating for a society without a state while emphasizing individual liberty and free-market principles. It seeks to eliminate government intervention in personal and economic matters, promoting voluntary interactions among individuals.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-70525-0_5
"It has become conventional wisdom that libertarianism stands opposed to overseas military intervention in principle, in particular after the military (mis)adventures of the United States in recent decades. This conventional wisdom is challenged in this contribution, relying on the cosmopolitan nature of libertarian minarchist principles. Using the contemporary notion of the responsibility to protect, a responsibility to protect liberty that looks more favorably upon the use of military force to protect and advance the liberty and property rights of individuals across the globe is formulated."
Neolibertarianism is a post-9/11 ideological offshoot of libertarianism that incorporates within libertarian foreign policy the use of preventive military force. It also holds that nearly all other issues should remain in the jurisdiction of local political entities: state/provincial and municipal governments, communities, and individuals.
One can be either an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist and a neolibertarian on foreign policy. An anarcho-capitalist would have private entities follow such a policy and the minarchist wants a severely limited state to do it. While supporting pseudo-voluntary taxation or user fees for services rendered as payment formats.
One could also be a paleolibertarian domestically while being a neolibertarian on foreign policy and international issues between Nations or between geographical areas that are not giving the individuals within freedom.
One can be an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-conservatives and be a neolibertarian on international relations and between geographical areas while legitimate threats exist. Yet when no threats exist be for complete non-intervention on foreign policy/ international relations with other geographical areas.
