Modern Libertarianism: Disease of Abstraction?

This post was inspired by Jon Murphy in the comments at Cafe Hayek.

One cannot have, properly speaking, a property right and no property. Certainly, one should defend not only the right to private property, but the right to get private property. But these things have collapsed in a supernovae of abstraction, especially since the farce of intellectual property has been imposed upon the land.

Stephan Kinsella has mentioned it is more appropriate not to call things property, but to state people have property rights in things. This would absolutely help the average libertarian think more clearly. I think he went even further and said that we have ownership interests in the things. There is no magical 'propertiness' of the thing. A thing might or might not be property.

Additionally, it would help to remind oneself that these things are in space and time.

And things with borders in space and time must be defended. Either the defense is there, or the existence of private property begins to break down. In the modern libertarian's case, the real is sacrificed for the abstract. Since most libertarians are a little smarter than average, it is easy for them, for instance, to fall to the wiles of the left, and discount the what they hear from the right.

There's freedom of association. There's private property. If they are defended and strong, then people can create their own communities. It doesn't matter if they are racist. It is simple logic- you can either exercise your rights or you cannot. If they result in an ethnostate, so be it. I doubt the desire for an ethnostate would be a strong as it is now if those rights had been upheld since the beginning.

These rights also apply to other citizens. Citizens who want non-citizens to come hang out. That's fine. Have the citizens who want this be liable for the non-citizens.

This makes sense to me. It has made sense to me for a long time. I remember a big border demonstration years ago, where one of the prime complaints was that ranchers kept being inundated by illegals. The government kept insisting on tying the ranchers hands, so they couldn't defend their land, nor really defend themselves- and they were definitely in danger.

But this doesn't make sense to others. It seems mystifying as to why anyone would need to protect private property in space and time when you are talking about immigration. Similarly, with freedom of association- space and time is a necessary part. I suppose most libertarians are wealthy enough to avoid unwanted associations, and it doesn't dawn on them how much the government has enforced a variety of associations upon the poor.

The changing demographics of Compton come to mind.