I think your placement of negative liberty above the other views that you say it implies is misguided, and misreads the practical interpretation of negative liberty. The political developments within right-libertarianism of the last few years have strongly indicated that negative liberty is a contested if not entirely incoherent principle in the abstract: Real people in the world are doing real political violence for negative liberty ideas like being free from the influence of trans people, or being free from CRT ideas reaching their children, or being free from proximity to immigrants, or the freedom of the family from the encroachment of liberal values. These views are vicious and wrong, but they are inescapable freedom-from, negative-liberty views.
The only way that negative liberty can have enough coherence and meaning to usefully direct us is in the context of other views that explain what the legitimate range of negative liberty is -- notions of consent, anti-authoritarianism, and cosmopolitanism. Without those, negative liberty easily encompasses the most repressive views of the right, and is no guide at all to libertarianism.
If negative liberty is a coherent idea at all (and I'm not going to go full William Gillis and say it's just a cover for authoritarian enclaves), it has to be in the context of a limiting and framing principles like consent and individualism that can pre-emptively and with principle put out-of-bounds "freedom from people" and "freedom from unwelcome ideas" and "freedom from change" and "freedom from disobedience and escape" that it invites.
>Is my reasoning for thinking the order I’ve provided somehow misguided? Am I missing a reason to think one I put later is more fundamental than I treat it? Let me know.
How do any of the “six commitments” relate to an explicit, abstract, value-free philosophical theory of liberty-in-itself? Libertarianism without a theory of liberty-in-itself is like utilitarianism without a theory of utility-in-itself. Here is one such theory: https://jclester.substack.com/p/eleutheric-conjectural-libertarianism
Do you consider homeowner associations (H.O.A.) to be libertarian?
I think your placement of negative liberty above the other views that you say it implies is misguided, and misreads the practical interpretation of negative liberty. The political developments within right-libertarianism of the last few years have strongly indicated that negative liberty is a contested if not entirely incoherent principle in the abstract: Real people in the world are doing real political violence for negative liberty ideas like being free from the influence of trans people, or being free from CRT ideas reaching their children, or being free from proximity to immigrants, or the freedom of the family from the encroachment of liberal values. These views are vicious and wrong, but they are inescapable freedom-from, negative-liberty views.
The only way that negative liberty can have enough coherence and meaning to usefully direct us is in the context of other views that explain what the legitimate range of negative liberty is -- notions of consent, anti-authoritarianism, and cosmopolitanism. Without those, negative liberty easily encompasses the most repressive views of the right, and is no guide at all to libertarianism.
If negative liberty is a coherent idea at all (and I'm not going to go full William Gillis and say it's just a cover for authoritarian enclaves), it has to be in the context of a limiting and framing principles like consent and individualism that can pre-emptively and with principle put out-of-bounds "freedom from people" and "freedom from unwelcome ideas" and "freedom from change" and "freedom from disobedience and escape" that it invites.
>Is my reasoning for thinking the order I’ve provided somehow misguided? Am I missing a reason to think one I put later is more fundamental than I treat it? Let me know.
How do any of the “six commitments” relate to an explicit, abstract, value-free philosophical theory of liberty-in-itself? Libertarianism without a theory of liberty-in-itself is like utilitarianism without a theory of utility-in-itself. Here is one such theory: https://jclester.substack.com/p/eleutheric-conjectural-libertarianism