This is primarily about Libertarian’s hypothetical ideal government, Libertaria, which is an implementation of his ideal of Libertarianism, however people with similar ideas should feel free to chime in.
The basic concept is IME most commonly called ‘anarcho-capitalism’; there is no government in the usual sense of the word, no state that claims jurisdiction within defined borders. Instead, a person acquires services that one would today associate with a state by contracting with other people and organizations. For example, there would be no public highway, rather you would negotiate with someone to use their highway, by driving on and paying tolls, signing a contract with some sort of yearly fee, or similar means. Similarly, there is no single police department or justice system; instead, you contract with an organization for police protection (including military) and dispute resolution. Since the police, military, and courts are the primary pieces of a ‘government’ today, one can call the organization you contract with for police protection a government. Under this system, the government of Libertaria has only one principle for its law, that one person cannot initiate force against another, and would be charged with protecting the people under its protection from aggressors, but not with enforcing equivalents of drug laws or trade tarriffs on people not signed on to it.
In the thread that prompted me to start this one, Libertarian said “Libertaria is not concerned with borders and is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent.” However, take the hypothetical situation where Libertaria governs a bunch of people who border my yard, but I have decided to sign on with government run by a different group of people, who really don’t like being disturbed called ‘Psychotica’. If a person from Libertaria (say, a child) violates my property rights (say, by cutting through my yard), I can use defensive force to protect myself (say, by blasting him with a shotgun). Under the law of Psychotica, that’s fine - Psychotica thinks that limits on defensive force are absurd and invasive. Under the law of Libertaria, they have no cause to do anything to me - I did not explicitly consent to their laws, and neither did I implicitly consent by initiating force against one of Libertaria’s citizens.
However, I don’t think that most people would consider that a government that responds to a child being shot for simple trespassing (and with no confusing circumstances, and no warnings or attempts to evict with lesser force) to be one they would consider worthwile. However, in the hypothetical situation, Libertaria must either initiate force against me (thus abandoning the principle of noncoercion) or allow me to go unpunished for blasting a child. So, which is it? I know what went on in a long-dead thread on this topic, but lets start fresh here.