Well, I will and it's not..
You see, DON when you begin with "no force, no fraud" you conviently forget about "Property right's"
Your school theory is all smoke, no consistant Libertarian can make your claim.. Because, how will you enforce it?
What arm of Government will you bring down on me and bossie? Eh?
Are you telling me what I can and cannot do on my own land Don? With my own property?
You are full of it and I dare you to justify this expansion of Government in a "pure" Libertarian society..
You are a liar Don.. <P. You are making things up as you go along.. Even the most staunch defender of the Libertarian ideology would agree.
Libertarian philosophy does not prohibit force or fraud.
It prohibits the initiation of force, or fraud.
Hence if an individual acts to initiate force against another, he morally empowers the use of restraining (defensive) force under libertarian philosophy. And the same libertarian philosophy suggests that men may act in concert (i.e. form a government) in the defense of rights.
So if (as in your example) you tried to force your neighbor's wife into prostitution, or caused harm to your neighbor's property, or tried to engage his children (who are too young to understand the concept of consent) in sexuality, he would be morally entitled to either [a: restrain you himself, or b:act in coordinated effort with his neighbors (i.e. government) to restrain you, with force if necessary[
Libertarian philosophy does not prohibit force.
It prohibits the INITIATION of force.
Please make a note of it.
Staunch defenders are not the same thing as contributing philosophical theorists. Most political animals couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, including, sadly, most libertarian political activists.
When you can point me to a well-known libertarian political philosopher who disagrees with me, I will feel moved to respond. You have still not responded to the substance of my argument, which makes it perfectly clear why "force and fraud" is not in essential conflict with any sensible understanding of property rights, with regard to your cow-poking-beside-the-schoolyard example.
Property rights, are important, sure, but they not absolute trumps in any libertarian theory of which I am aware. Continuing to insist that they are, without providing me with an example from a well-known libertarian philosopher, after I've given you a perfectly obvious example otherwise, vis. a vis. manslaughter, is just silly.