The key point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and divorced from any consideration of the common good or the social and institutional prerequisites for a stable and just society, they can lead to outcomes that are deeply problematic and that can create the conditions for more authoritarian and even fascistic forms of politics to take root.

Here's how this dynamic might play out:

If the principle of "don't aggress" is interpreted in a highly individualistic and atomistic way, it can lead to a view of society as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals, each pursuing their own interests without regard for others. This can erode social bonds, undermine a sense of shared responsibility, and create a vacuum of meaning and purpose that can be filled by more authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.

Similarly, an absolutist conception of private property rights, without any recognition of the broader social context in which those rights are embedded, can lead to extreme inequalities of wealth and power, and a sense of disenfranchisement and resentment among those who feel left behind. This can create fertile ground for populist and nationalist movements that promise to restore a sense of belonging and purpose, even at the cost of individual freedoms.

Moreover, if the state is seen as nothing more than a "night watchman" whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights and property, it may lack the capacity and legitimacy to address collective challenges and provide the public goods and services necessary for a healthy and stable society. This can lead to a breakdown of trust in public institutions and a further erosion of the social fabric, creating openings for more authoritarian forms of governance to fill the void.

To be clear, none of this is to suggest that the principles of individual rights, private property, and non-aggression are inherently fascistic or that they inevitably lead to authoritarianism. Rather, the point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and abstracted from the broader social and political context in which they are necessarily embedded, they can have unintended and dangerous consequences.

This is why thinkers in the classical liberal tradition, and more recently those associated with "state capacity libertarianism" and "liberal nationalism," have emphasized the need to balance these principles with a strong conception of the common good and a recognition of the positive role that effective and accountable government can play in securing the conditions for individual freedom and social flourishing. 

 “when these principles are taken to an extreme and divorced from any consideration of the common good or the social and institutional prerequisites for a stable and just society” 

Apply that statement to any political ideology and you are not going to have a good outcome. 

 I sympathize with your viewpoint. People who believe that libertarian principles are like the simple rules in a snake and ladders game indeed take on a sort of arrogance, which can lead them to justify manipulation of the use of force in the end. I’m with Van Dun that the most foundational “ought” that can be derived from an “is”, is that humans ought to be reasonable; and hence that reasonable argumentation is the bedrock of any peaceful, orderly, convivial society. 

 Am in full agreement. One area where I've sought, and continue to seek, to expand on that notion is how differing cultural frameworks are overlaid on the idea of "reason".  

A reasoned individual in Western cultures might be deemed at odds to what is considered a reasoned individual in places like Japan and China.  There are sharp contrasts I have found.   

 Can you give an example? 

 There are so many.  

I suppose the best would be that obfuscating the truth, not lying exactly, is considered reasoned behavior in #China.   In western cultures this would be viewed as "the ends justify the means".  Such actions would not be deemed reasonable outside of China, but are very much so here. 

One key takeaway from my time here is the degree a civilized society in the west is defined by Judeo-Christian ethos.  Clearly, this is not at all the basis of how society operates in China, or in other Asian countries for that matter.  

 I definitely don't think that ought can be derived from is. I am firmly in Hume's camp.  

 The fact you are insisting it must be bottoms up, is the ontological fallacy. The fact you think I'm arguing a transcendent objective truth about universal notion of a common good, is a straw man of my position. I'm not as sure you have a very strong grasp of these issues, as you seem to think you do.  

 Do you have suggested readings/authors related to “state capacity libertarianism" and "liberal nationalism” 

 Sounds like a chat GPT response packed with non-logical platitudes. In fact, many of Mike Brocks longer posts reads like an un-thinking GPT output. Will have to mute this nonsense.