1. Creation as a source of property rights — No.

2. Labour as being owned — Technically no, but it’s not hard to figure out what a person actually intends to say when she says that a person owns her own labour.

3. Unintentional equivocation (harm, authority, hierarchy, etc.) — It’s impossible to oppose “authority”; the question is merely whether authority should be vested in the individual over her own body and her own justly-acquired property or whether it should be transferred away from her to some class set aside for the purpose of governing others. As for hierarchy, all real hierarchy is the direct product of aggression. Freely exchanging the products of one’s labour (e.g., widgets) for a wage (e.g., silver) is nonherarchical, just as nonhierarchical as freely exchanging a pen for a pencil.

4. Alienability and voluntary slavery — I’m with Rothbard and Richman: voluntary slavery contracts are bunk.

5. Self-ownership as being “nonsense” or religious/mystical — Self-ownership was the rallying cry of abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, both of whom referred to slavemasters as “man-stealers.” Some abolitionists preferred the term “individual sovereignty” to “self-ownership,” but in every practical sense, it means the same exact thing: only the individual should be free to dictate what nonviolent actions she commits with her own body. Let’s face it: the body is made of matter, and is therefore subject to ownership to the same extent that anything else is. For one to oppose self-ownership or individual sovereignty, one must necessarily make the claim that it is legitimate for person B to use person A‘s body in a manner not to A‘s liking, since for A to object or try to prevent B from doing this, A would necessarily be asserting the authority to monopolise the use of her own body, which means, in short, to exert ownership over her own body. To oppose rape, one must support self-ownership—period. To oppose self-ownership is to advocate chaos, a war of all against all. One needs not be religious to see the complete and utter impracticality of rejecting self-ownership.

6. Early America as proto-libertarian/Constitution as quasi-libertarian — The Constitution only appears libertarian in comparison to the authoritarian establishment of today.

7. “Aggression” versus “coercion” — I use the terms interchangably; I do not use either term to refer to nagging.

13. “Human rights” — You mean, as opposed to the concept of “animal rights”?

14. Whether “fighting words” can justify a sock in the nose — Never. An actual threat, however, can justify physical retaliation.

15. Punishment of non-customer criminals by PDAs — Is anyone opposed to this? It doesn’t matter if you’re a customer or not—if you steal the bike, you owe restitution.

17. Corporations and limited liability — I’d say there are two kinds of limited liability: libertarian limited liability and statist limited liability. Libertarian limited liability exists between any two persons or organisations that have actually contracted to limit liability between themselves. Under libertarian limited liability, if Business X has a limited liability contract with John, then liability should be limited between the two of them. Contrariwise, if Business X has no limited liability contract with John’s neighbour Steve, and Business X ends up polluting Steve’s farm, then Business X is 100% liable to Steve. Under statist limited liability, by contract, the business’s liability is limited regardless of the presence or absence of contract. Under statist limited liability, Steve is screwed.

18. The possibility of “limited” government — It’s failed every time it’s been experimented. Can’t we just give anarchy a chance, to quote Douglas French.

22. Civil War/Lincoln opposition and “neo-confederacy” — The Union was just as bad as the Confederacy.

25. Why libertarians are not opposed to some positive obligations — I’m only opposed to innate positive obligations. Positive obligations can be acquired in two ways: (1) through contract, and (2) through criminal invasion of the rights of others.

26. Why contract is not binding promises but title transfer — Title-transfer Theory all the way.

29. Liability for “incitement” — I’d say liability rests entirely on the persons who (A) commit the actions and (B) pay for the commission of the actions. None of the liability rests on those who (C) “incite” the actions.

30. “Loser pays” litigation rules — Ideally, the parties would agree contractually in advance about the payment scheme; but, in the event that agreement cannot be reached, it would seem that “Loser pays” would be the appropriate de facto arrangement.

31. Educational vouchers — Abolish taxes, as well as all statist control over money, and I will have no problem with some group of people calling itself “the government” choosing to fund education.

32. And many more — It sounds like an interesting course. If I had the money to spare, I’d consider taking it.