But his libertarian vision included free healthcare, a citizen dividend, and a government takeover of most of the banking system. (Rather more government than I prefer, BTW.)

This book was written in 1939, well before Rothbard came up with his very narrow definition.

The historical dishonesty of the LP is that it uses a broad (Nolan Chart) definition for outreach and the stringent (Rothbard) definition internally — some of the time.

Nothing dishonest about using the word “libertarian” broadly as long as it is done consistently. ZAPers are then “anarcho-capitlists” or at least “strict libertarians.”

I’ve believed for years that as the D & R parties became less and less distinguishable the Powers That Be would look to push forward a new false front affiliation that would make a more credible opposition, thereby keeping the “participatory democracy” scam alive..

Unfortunately for the aspirations of its adherents to cushy government appointments or subsidies the LP seems to be rushing to join the major parties in one giant state-loving chimera.

For that very reason it may inadvertently help the cause of freedom, though. It’s certainly more likely to do so than anything one can do, at least legally, in a voting booth…

I started using the term “constitutionalist” wrt Ron Paul thought, and I’m aware that it won’t suit the Barrists as well as the Paulists.

But the term “market liberal” suffers because classical-liberalism is self-contradictory. Resolving the contradictions within the social contract theory leads to individual sovereignty/ voluntary federation, i.e. to anarchism. The same applies to markets, whether defined in the narrow sense or applied to the whole voluntary sphere. Liberalism is inconsistent liberalism; anarchism is consistent liberalism.

That they won’t like “market liberal” because it has the word “liberal” in it is a BONUS. Remember that what I propose is not politely suggesting this to them, but the use of the term as insult and invective to create a sort of psycho-drama to sear it into their memory (and that of witnesses).

I propose this because our numbers are small, so in order for us to effect the proposed change we need leverage.

Furthermore, I believe it will train the user of the rhetorical device themself to think of themselves as a market anarchists, willing to focus on what’s wrong with market liberalism (in similar fashion to the way a Marxist might criticize a social democrat).

We need to break the pattern of siding with liberals when conservatives are in power and then siding with conservatives when liberals are in power. What I propose is, effectively, seizing the relatively under-utilized mantle of the far left in terms of relative ideological positions.

This is particularly appropriate for the “states’ rights” and “enumerated powers” factions. They may be happy with the term. Hopefully, their bad reputation will undermine the still-too-good reputation of written constitutions, whether oligarchical like the US’ or minarchistic.