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.
   > there may be other arguments for the State
   that do not rely on political authority, namely consequentialist
   arguments
   The term "consequentialist" appears to be used repeatedly without its
   meaning introduced.
   [1]https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
   > 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 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.
   > Other libertarians have
   sought to  provide a more consequentialist justification, by showing
   how private property replaces the zero- (or negative-) sum
   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?

References

   1. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism