Dang Nabbit writes in the comments:
First of all, “hard” libertarian is a semiotic device you guys invented to make your fusionist selves look better. Please name one of these “hard’ libertarians that would choose free market capitalism even if it did immiserate the poor.
I’m pretty sure there are quite a few “hard libertarians”. There are also a large number of people who think of themselves as hard libertarians, though deep down they are not. But Dang Nabbit’s objection gets at something we’re trying to convey in this blog.
The left believes that libertarians believe:
Property Rights No Matter What: People are self-owners. Respecting their self-ownership requires a particular kind of laissez-faire property-rights regime. We should have that regime no matter what, even if it immiserates the poor and systematically leads to widespread poverty.
In fact, hardly any self-described libertarians believe this. Instead, in one way or another, most believe that a system of property rights is supposed to solve real human problems and make our lives better. Most libertarians advocate free markets and property right in large part because they think this will tend to make people’s lives go better.
The left wants us to have a debate over whether “property rights no matter what” is true. They’ll win that debate.
What we’re trying to say in this blog is that if you look carefully at what the (smart) left means by “social justice”, almost all us classical liberals and self-described libertarians count as caring about social justice.