“This is why actual libertarians (such as the ones at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians website) constantly prod left-styled libertarians with the question of whether they’ll stand by the non-aggression principle even if it doesn’t end up producing “socialist ends via market means.”

I have to disagree with the implication that the writers at BHL and all private-propertarian ‘right-libertarians’ (or vulgar libs), are ‘actual libertarians’ or have some better ideological cred or right to use of the word (their ilk does dominate the discourse of what is considered libertarian, but that’s an entirely different matter), when the very word
‘libertarian’ itself was a leftist descriptor, taken up not only by individualists who were no cheerleaders for private property or ‘rugged individualism’ of the sort the BHL writers champion, but by anarcho-communists, syndicalists and mutualists. Many of them may be market friendly, but none of them endorse the market as an end to be reached by whatever means necessary.

Carson among other left-libertarians have set about theorizing a number of qualifiers for what a ‘freed market’ would look like, all of which involve activism of an alleged bottom-up nature that would promote cultural practices and economic behavior that was not dominated by fee-simple private ownership and employer-employee dynamics. Of course, how to get there is the Big Question, but, coming from myself, having an ideology somewhere between Georgism, an-syndicalism of the Chomsky type and Carson style mutualism, I think Carson has done commendable work.

The market is only one process of economic behavior. I don’t speak for any self described left-libertarians, but I get the impression they do not consider a propertarian ‘freed market’ to be bound to any axioms, the ‘non-aggression principle’ included.