[T]here is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism.
We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences.
The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument.
As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments?
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute