No don’t you see, by virtue of the free market, someone will innovate around the need for water!

Then they will hold a monopoly over necessary resources for a few generations until someone innovates around them.

You have to realize it’s a good thing to see others go without just to make sure I never have to share my excess wealth /s

That's a nice strawman you've got. I think what you're describing is anarchy.

The origin of libertarianism is Dejacque, who considered Proudhon of "property is theft" fame to be a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian" for not going far enough.

He was an anarcho-communist and the first publisher of libertarian political texts.

Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger, and e.g. people like Rothbard very intentionally tried to find common ground between what he saw as the anti-authoritarian parts of the left and the right, but was largely rebuffed by the left, where left-libertarians, many of whom are anarchists, saw the right-libertarian obsession with property rights as fundamentally incompatible with the goal of maximising liberty.

> Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger

How can you make this claim when Frederick Bastiat was a contemporary of Dejacque's? Many of today's leading libertarian-minded thinkers (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.) consider Bastiat core to their beliefs and you can hear Bastiat's writings echoed in their works.

I can make this claim because Dejacque was the first to use the term to describe an ideology (here is the very first use [1], and here's a page on Dejacque's newspaper Le Libertaire[2]), and because when the term was introduced into right-wing anti-authoritarianism it was with explicit knowledge that it was co-opting the term as it had then been used for a century by the left.

Libertarianism as such was founded as a rejection of "moderate" anarchism, and a more extensive rejection of authority than that of Proudhon, along with an absolute rejection of property rights as oppressive.

That he was later adopted by some right-wing libertarians does not mean he invented libertarianism. Many people toyed with similar ideas. Dejacque was the person who gave it a name and promoted it as an explicit ideology.

You'll also not that Bastiat did not take things nearly as far as Dejacque did. E.g. Bastiat argued in Justice and Fraternity even for limited state provided welfare, so he did not even go as far as many right-libertarians. But whatever the size, he argues for a state, not the total dismantling of the state, which was the origin of libertarianism.

As such, Bastiat looks libertarian to right-libertarians because they took left-wing libertarianism and gutted the commitment to liberty of Dejacque to add in state restrictions on liberty to enable property, and in doing so shifted the ideology far to the right. But he's far less libertarian by its original definition than e.g. an anarchist like Proudhon. To left-libertarians he's just another statist.

[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Libertaire

Bastiat was a so-called right-wing libertarian in all but name only. Rothbard borrowed very liberally from Bastiat (no pun intended).

I don't recall reading anything like state provided welfare in Justice and Fraternity. It has been a very long time since I've read it, but that sounds antithetical to some of his other writings which I've re-read more recently. I would be curious to see the specific passage.

To my knowledge, communal arrangements (like Dejacque seemingly favors) have not proven practical outside of relatively small communities.

What exactly in essentially removing the state but keeping private property precludes this scenario?

If it's not evident, the conception and enforcement of private property writ large is established by governmental coercion. Thus monopolization really only occurs through that force, and is also the predominate competitor for monopolization.

You've got a silly proconception that mankind is endemically neurotic. Virtually every interaction you make throughout the day is self-organized, I'd conjecture the vast majority of it is done without direct, indirect, or conditioned coercion, and unsupervised. Multiply this by 7bn. That is to say that most all hierarchical authority isn't even preventative, and is almost exclusively reactionary, which further extends into reasoning that the "order" promised by the institutions is largely illusory outside of the directives offered, which could just as well be derived through any other system.

Dystopia? The wealthiest and most successful nations are built on the principles of classical liberalism / libertarianism.

On which of them? Classical liberalism and libertarianism, be it left- or right-libertarianism are nothing alike.

Libertarianism upholds the same principles of individual liberties. Libertarianism is also the closest thing to what's called liberalism internationally. In the US, liberalism was renamed to libertarianism.

You'd have to be using these terms in a non-standard way, for that to be true. Some common forms of libertarianism are under the umbrella of liberalism, or part of its family, if you like, but they are not identical.

This explains the connection to classical liberalism and the confusion of these terms pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S...

You see that historically libertarianism follows directly from classical liberalism. They just changed the name.

Classical liberalism is a retrospective name for one thread of liberalism. It does not—and this is important—encompass all liberals before some date, but one branch, influenced by a set of thinkers and writers who are also counted among the influences of other branches. It has its own wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

and the broader thread, in context, is traced here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

One point that may make the distinction clear is that in this sentence, from the article you linked: "During the mid-20th century, many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as libertarians." The "Old Right" were opponents of Roosevelt, who himself sits at the base of the branch of what the "Liberalism" entry calls "Modern Liberalism"—but both are under the tent of liberalism, as were others then and earlier whose views did not line up with libertarianism.

Liberalism was not renamed libertarianism, even just in the US, and that's certainly not what's meant by liberalism internationally.

It's not the same, but it's probably the closest thing, because European liberals are advocates of less taxes, less government regulation and intervention, less welfare state, and in general oppose any kind of socialism and Keynesian economic policies. It's quite opposite of what 'liberals' in the US advocate for, when it comes to government role and economic policies.

'Liberalism' as used when refering to Democratic Party policies in the US, is generally refered as social democracy or social liberalism in Europe.

Here's another source from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...