There I fixed it.
The author alluded to a common root of both marxism and libertarianism when he says "That man should be a priori free from aggression and entitled to whatever he produces is not really in dispute." This is an idea that came with the modern era revolution in thinking. If you go back in history that's not really something that was universally believed. But it is part of the legacy of the Enlightenment and it's about how far back in history we need to go to find the common thread of right-libertarian thought and marxism. Before that people had other ideas such as divine right of aristocrats. Modern fascists and racialists have similar medieval ideas about superiority of one group over another.
Phrased another way, and it's also in the article, people "have rights to the fruits of their labour". I think marxists and right-libertarians all agree to this principle. But what even classical economists like Adam Smith understood, labor is a collective endeavor, so people need to decide how to split up the surplus fruits of the labor after the work is done.
When a capitalist assembles the money and workers and space and tortilla shells to make tacos, well the capitalist has done some work by bringing all these elements together in one place. And the worker who puts together the tacos has also done work.
So both the capitalist and the worker have competing claims against any surplus money that is created through this process.
Who should get the money, or how should it be split up since both parties appear to have competing claims to the money since they both expended some effort? I think libertarians would say the surplus should be divided according to the terms freely agreed to by the parties in advance - a work agreement or private contract. But in real life we know people don't always have a choice about where they work or whether to work at all.
A contribution of Marx was to point out that when there are equal competing claims against the fruits of a combined labor process, then force decides who wins. That's not a statement of what's right or wrong, as much as it is a description of what has happened in history. That's why human history is a history of class struggle - struggling over that surplus. That's why we end up with monopoly capitalism under the auspices of a corporate state.
So getting back to the point of the blog post, in so far as right-libertarians only analyze an idealized, fictional, highly theoretical version of reality, and don't examine history or real life examples to test whether their theories are correct, yes they are lazy.
But they are not lazy marxists since they don't accept the basic idea that value is created through combined labor, and subgroups in society have always fought about how to split up the surplus.
So I agree with what Starry Messenger said in post 1. People have always lived and worked together in communities.
I would add that protecting and expanding individual liberties is an important goal in my opinion. But so-called libertarians don't actually do that since the logical conclusion of what they promote is a sort of corporate capitalist tyranny where everything, even human life itself is reduced to its market exchange value in dollars.
So I also agree with Fantastic Anarchist in post 2. We're talking about right-wing libertarians here. There are other ideas and people out there that may also be called libertarian, who place a high value on individual liberty, but who certainly don't fall in the category we're talking about. I wouldn't mind being called a libertarian because I think people should be secure in their bodies and homes and generally not molested by government if they aren't doing anything wrong, and also I support freedom of speech, assembly, etc . It's a problem though because generally in the US libertarian means Milton Friedman or the Cato institute or something. On a bad day it means Rand Paul and Ayn Rand. It's a problems with labels when people have different definitions.
= new reply since forum marked as read