there may be other arguments for the State

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a

Other libertarians have sought to provide a more consequentialist justification, by showing how private property replaces the zero- (or negative-) sum

Not being a current libertarian, it is hard to translate all of life's flows into market-based terms of political argument. This seems to make it hard to communicate with libertarians on politics, who appear to have the same assumptions with regard to what is good as most people would, but different conclusions. that do not rely on political authority, namely consequentialist arguments The term "consequentialist" appears to be used repeatedly without its meaning introduced. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do. This is confusing to me because I see everyone as making consequentialist decisions based on expected probabilities. This seems to be the only way a living being forms decisions. Why give it a word? People's moral judgement and trust of you, how behaviors spread from you, how culture acts if everyone adopts a behavior, and how you feel in the future, are other forms of consequence. It reads as if "consequentialism" is used to describe a focus on some clear results, at the expense of results that people might find harder to describe: or some results that somebody values, at the expense of some results that they would like to ignore. transactions of the commons with the positive-sum transactions of a market economy. I don't know what is being described here. Why would a commons ever have a non-positive sum of anything? What thing are we summing that this is possible? Okay, I websearched and found "tragedy of the commons" which is a claim that shared resources exhaust if everybody takes from them. _This never continues because everybody who does it eventually dies_. That is why biological life has not breathed all the oxygen in the atmosphere away, or eaten all the plants up, already. If you are attacking a common resource, you are not going to succeed unless you prevent everybody else from learning about the issue and acting on it. Thoughts? How is a market economy more "positive sum" than people contributing to shared resources simply because they all need them?