Why I Am Not a Libertarian: Murray Rothbard Explains

I'm probably more libertarian than at least 95% of the people here in Germany. I am not, however, a libertarian in any useful sense of the word. Archlibertarian Murray Rothbard, in his sketch of the US's classical liberal movement's history, quite nicely describes why*:

[The 19th century saw] the abandonment of the philosophy of natural rights [by many], and its replacement by technocratic utilitarianism. Instead of liberty grounded on the imperative morality of each individual's right to person and property, that is, instead of liberty being sought primarily on the basis of right and justice, utilitarianism preferred liberty as generally the best way to achieve a vaguely defined general welfare or common good.

Of course, once you abandon imaginary "natural rights" and kindergarten categories such as "justice" in favour of utilitarian calculus, you might end up with views that are not libertarian at all.

______
*For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rev.Ed. New York, London: Collier Macmillan, p. 15. This is from the first chapter and I've only browsed the remainder of the book, but based on that I can say that Rothbard is not shy of using utilitarian arguments for libertarianism. That's a bit odd if libertarianism is right regardless of the consequences.