He invokes LOCKE but doesn't relate archetypal property legitimized by GOD, ROME, or RES PUBLICA to any argument either to refute Holbo's disquisition of a paper written by Samuel Freeman, "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151. (Holbo's citation.) or Bryan Caplan's thesis of "libertarian nostalgia" in "How Free Were American Women in the Gilded Age?"; whence arises Holbo's attempt to distinguish thresholds of tolerance for liberty among authors of libertarian political philosophy for whom the expression of property rights represents a fundamental, ontological conflict between individual and group --corporate or industrial-- enterprise. (Let us note momentarily how the political issue of property from sex that inspired this cross-talk sure as hell didn't survive the voyage to ET and move on.)

Then, Brad dismembers Holbo's article to disguise the coherence of Holbo's thesis ( what are thick and thin libertarian ideologies?) so that Freeman's statements are indistiguishable from Holbo's in the pull-quotes he's provided.

But wait: There is more of the sophic humor one might expect from a professor of macroeconomic revelation who's also, apparently, averse to Oliver Williams and Veblen. Brad whets his accusation of Holbo's disingenous thesis by alluding to his own citation to LOCKE and hagiography of (paranthetically, theocratic) ROMAN antiquity: "That's how serfdom got started. The Roman Empire collapses...."  

The jiggin' must stop, people.

Today, right now, the state's interest in you is a claim of ownership of your person. So.

How would you differentiate authoritarianism and socialism?

How would you differentiate so-called liberals' exhortations for "adult" government from so-called authoritarians' deprecations of "nanny state"?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.