That would be sensible advice if libertarianism were substantively false. However, it's substantively correct. Therefore there should be people advocating it specifically, and analysis that neglects or takes as unimportant specifically libertarian insights won't be sufficient.

2- There's conceptual space where we find people who are radical liberals but not quite anarchists. There should be a word for the position shared by those people and individualist anarchists, but not by liberal progs or illiberal anarchists. There is such a word: "libertarian."

fact that we're radical liberals, but doing that also means remembering that we're not *just* liberals, we're something more specific. So why not *just* say anarchist, then? 1- There are illiberal and unlibertarian anarchists, and distinction needs to be made from them.

I agree that liberalism should be emphasized (c4ss.org/content/49939). But that has problems of its own. 1- Conflation with progs, 2- Conflation with reformists / moderates, 3- The reason behind 1&2, which is that liberalism is a broader term. Libertarians should remember the -

- baggage wouldn't have any bearing on its truth.

The difference here is frankly that Schmitt is just bad, whereas political frameworks that either neglect positively the necessity of markets or normatively the necessity of libertarian rights are defective. Even if the most pessimistic estimates of libertarianism's sociological-