This illustrates the general problem with libertarianism: its conception of “property” is too narrow. 1. It privileges things that are easy to measure, but plenty of critically important things are hard to measure. 2. It seeks to eliminate the commons, but some parts of the commons are ineliminable, can never be privatized. Culture and institutions are part of this set of necessarily collectively-owned goods. If you take these things into account, the model works, but produces outcomes most libertarians would balk at. Pinker is a thief: he benefits from Christianity yet disparages it. He is overgrazing the cultural commons. He has aggressed not against any particular person, but against a collective. I say this as a non-Christian. I have, over time, shifted to the view that atheism should be an elite phenomenon only, as was the norm for most of history, because Christianity is load-bearing for huge swaths of people and for society as a whole. Shultz did a tremendous amount to degrade our culture and our political institutions, then flees the consequences. He is also a thief. This enhanced view of property rights is both more accurate and more functional, but the idea of preventing people from parasitizing the commons makes many classical liberals and libertarians feel icky, so the looting continues.