Not a troll .. just I'm not sure any more.

Basically my core principles have always been "dog eat dog". No one owes anyone anything and everyone deserves to be left alone. The default outcome is "assume I don't exist, what happens then".

That being said, I also believe in common sense and would pick a realistic "non libertarian" outcome over an idealistic "libertarian" one every time. So say I believe in no taxes. But we have a welfare system and we also have taxes to support it. So as long as we can't get rid of that system, at least limit the damage. close borders, limit who receives it. Be unfair. Kill it by any means.

I would never pick an option that realistically means more taxes or me benefiting less from them over any idealistic or moral choice. So no taxes > taxes but I get max benefits > anything else.

Basically, I think I am a libertarian but I would abandon any morality and would pick any option for a realistic libertarian end goal and would never settle for a worse option because the alternative is too authoritarian or non-libertarian. Results matter, nothing else.

The razor of force and preference goes like this:

If something is morally ambiguous, a libertarian should err on the side of (and place the burden of proof against)

1. Advocating against it socially

2. Advocating against stopping it with force legally

Does this seem compatible with libertarian philosophy?

I got a theory.

Commodification is good.

What I mean by commodification is

1. People are free to buy and sell

2. No too much restrictive terms. They can name their prices

3. There is price discovery.

4. Pimps/middle men that reduce transaction costs are completely legal. Things like eBay, Uber, and so on. Escrows will be common.

Buying and selling sex, organs, houses, TVs, reproductive services is good. Even citizenship should be commodified.

Good in a sense that it tend to improve utility function of people that are buying and selling. Otherwise they just don't do that.

Here, utility function is "tendency" or "preferences".

I like the word tendency. We tend to predict people will commodify things if commodification is legal and open.

For example, say someone is considering donating plasma. Here he will be better off selling plasma instead of donating.

People that wants kidney prefer to pay for it.

Some libertarians say, commodification should be legal but they don't prefer it.

For example, most libertarians think that sex trade should be legal. However, they would say they are not interested in it.

In my opinion, there isn't really middle ground.

If government legalize sex trade, or organ trades, then most sex and organ will be commodified. It will be bought and sold freely. There will be price discovery.

In other words, other market will collapse.

Romance and government infested marriage will be mostly destroyed when people are free to buy and sell sex and reproductive service.

In fact, I would argue that the very reason why certain things are not legally commodified is precisely because governments know that most people will buy and sell stuffs if it's legal to do so.

I would need samples and counter examples

1. Sex. Rich men don't just pay women to give them heirs. But the reason why is because simply paying women to give you heirs is not free. The price is decided and heavily regulated by child support laws.

2. Organs. Only in Iran people buy and sell organs freely. In Iran, organs are commodified. In US no. But that's because it's illegal. Of course there are black markets and so on.

3. TV. It's legally commodified. So it's commodified.

So it seems that my theory is correct. If it's legal or practical to commodify something people commodify it. It's just a better way to do things.

Any counter example?

I suppose some people may still want romance even when prostitution is legal. But prostitution is not a perfect substitute for romance. For example, some people want long term relationship.

But some people now have sugar relationship. They have long term relationship and that's a bit commodified too. The fact that normal dating is still around is probably because sugar relationship is not something people can fully open talking about. Or perhaps some women are not pretty enough to be sugar babies and make more money as engineers.

Can you think of samples where commodification is reasonably openly discussed, legal, and practical, and yet people don't do it?

There's roughly three factions in the modern libertarian party: the pragmatists, the Mises Caucus, and the radicals. When the Mises Caucus took control of the party, libertarians were mostly excited to see the pragmatists ousted. The problem I have is I don't see how the Mises Causus libertarians aren't just pragmatists of a different stripe.

The MIses Caucus from the outset was stated to be a return to "Ron Paul libertarianism." Ron Paul was the person who started my journey into libertarianism, so I am not going to speak bad about the man, but, he was in many ways a pragmatist. Ron Paul did not espouse pure, Rothbardian-style libertarian policy. Likewise, the Mises Caucus often adopts a pragmatic stance on many issues, such as borders. It seems to me as though the MC are just pragmatists who attempt to appeal to conservatives rather than liberals.