Wild-eyed Libertarians

www.blueoregon.com ^ | 1 12 05 | Pat Ryan

[freepatriot32]

I’ve been challenged a few times on this blog to defend myself as a “libertarian”. Here’s a quick and incomplete statement of principles that I use to fit myself into that pigeonhole. As a “Jack Libertarian” I’m guessing that I’m in the minority of citizens of the state of Oregon, but I don’t really understand why. It’s probably the case that most people would rather let the experts (preachers, doctors, advertisers, talk show hosts, Ph.Ds, country music stars, gummint bureaucrats, etcetera) make their choices rather than listening to them and making our own choices. Small “L” libertarians are people that just wanted to be left alone to make decisions affecting their personal behavior without interference from government. My favorite definition of “libertarian” comes from the Online Dictionary and reads as follows: “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” Many of us include the following qualifier: “My rights extend only to the point where they infringe on your rights.” So, for example, your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose. If you violate my nose rights, I’ll feel free to respond in kind. When I say that I’m “Pro-choice” on just about everything, I mean that everyone should have the right to decide how to live their lives. This includes, but is not limited to:

The right to keep and bear arms The right to absolute control of your own body The right to engage in risky behavior as long as I don’t put you at risk without your consent The right of consenting adults to engage in any kind of sexual behavior The right of citizens to protest, burn the flag, and advocate crackpot ideas, left and right The right of any citizen to respond to violence with violence The right to use or abuse any and all drugs, food, etcetera The right of you and your family to be healthy The right to commit suicide The right to buy, sell, and trade with other citizens The right to do what I want to do with my real estate as long as it doesn’t physically damage your real estate. The right to protect my personal property from theft or destruction The right to religious freedom

All of the above is limited to adults as science shows that minor children’s brains are in the development process all the way through the teen years. (Apologies to some extremely well developed intellects in the under 21 set). Also, and most importantly, you don’t have the right to impose your will or vision on someone else by use of force, intimidation, or threats of any kind. You don’t have the right to make me pray, salute, or show any kind of loyalty to any religion, political ideal, or belief system of any kind and you don’t have the right to take my stuff or hurt my friends and family. You don’t have the right, much less the duty, to protect me from myself. A world that actually ran this way, would require that you get informed as a matter of self preservation. You would need to know that alcohol, coffee, aspirin, water, heroin, and french fries can all kill you in the long run or the short run. You would learn moderation and tolerance or you would die sooner rather than later. You would spend some time researching the people that think they are qualified to lead us and pay attention to their actions instead of voting on the basis of whether they talk like a tough guy or whether they “look French”. You would make sure not to buy bread from the guy that uses broken glass as an ingredient. We would all have to tolerate things and people that we don’t like. In return, they would have to tolerate us.

Still, I’m forced to grudgingly accept that we do need a civil state to enforce these rights, and to step in when “individual rights” conflict with the interests of society. It is here that most civic debate takes place.

It really is that simple to me, and it really is that complicated. Follow the news from a lot of different viewpoints. Stay informed about everything that affects your life. It’s hard work in this complex world, but hey, it’s your life. Live it well. We’ll all be dead soon enough.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Capitalism2003]

thanks for the ping ;)

[jackbob]

That's a pretty good description of Libertarianism from a positive perspective that avoids the many negative implications. I did however disagree with him on a small popular libertarian point.

"My rights extend only to the point where they infringe on your rights." So, for example, your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose. If you violate my nose rights, I'll feel free to respond in kind.

Speaking only to the given example, that is not good enough for me. Prudence, a much written about legal concept, would suggest otherwise. Of course I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations. That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.

I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense. A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.

[dAnconia]

Please add me to your list.

Libertarianism describes the political applications of the saying:

"Mind your own freakin' business!"

[freepatriot32]

youve been added to my list thanks for your intrest in it

[dAnconia]

Thanks!

[secretagent]

Small “L” libertarians are people that just wanted to be left alone to make decisions affecting their personal behavior without interference from government.

How does a small "L" libertarian differ from a large "L" libertarian?

[secretagent]

Juries can debate as to when violence responds, with prudence, to a threat, or itself initiates it.

At the international level, we have that debate over the invasion of Iraq.

A good premise to accept - "thou shall not initiate force". We can argue over who initiates force, but great if we at least accept the premise.

[Turbopilot]

A small "L" generally supports the principles and applications of limited government, not necessarily any specific political party. A large "L" is a member of the Libertarian Party.

[theFIRMbss]

[secretagent]

Thanks.

[jmc813]

How does a small "L" libertarian differ from a large "L" libertarian?

Small-l libertarianism is a philosiphy while a large-L Liertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party. I'm a small-l libertarian but I think the LP is whacked on several issues and therefore stick with the GOP.

[secretagent]

Small-l libertarianism is a philosiphy

Thanks.

I like the libertarian principle of "non-initiation of force". I haven't checked out the party in a long time, so I don't know if that comes up a lot there.

[AntiBurr]

Please add me to your ping list. You have accurately and succinctly stated the majority of my political beliefs.

[jackbob]

I don't agree that defense against all threats should be solely left to juries to decide. The benefit of having laws regarding threats are as important as having laws against other crimes. People should know what their rights are, as well as the limits of those rights.

[jonestown]

You wrote:

" --- everyone should have the right to decide how to live their lives.
This includes, but is not limited to:

The right to keep and bear arms
The right to absolute control of your own body
The right to engage in risky behavior as long as I don't put you at risk without your consent
The right of consenting adults to engage in any kind of sexual behavior
The right of citizens to protest, burn the flag, and advocate crackpot ideas, left and right
The right of any citizen to respond to violence with violence

Within common law, 'reasonable' limits are put on violence in kind. We've delegated a lot of power to the State in this area.

The right to use or abuse any and all drugs, food, etcetera
The right of you and your family to be healthy
The right to commit suicide
The right to buy, sell, and trade with other citizens
The right to do what I want to do with my real estate as long as it doesn't physically damage your real estate.

Your acts can also do perceived financial damage to your neighbors estate.

The right to protect my personal property from theft or destruction
The right to religious freedom

Also, and most importantly, you don't have the right to impose your will or vision on someone else by use of force, intimidation, or threats of any kind.
You don't have the right to make me pray, salute, or show any kind of loyalty to any religion, political ideal, or belief system of any kind

You have the duty to obey the laws & ideals [the principles] of our US Constitution as a resident here. Read our Oath of Naturalization as a guideline to the obligations of citizenship.

and you don't have the right to take my stuff or hurt my friends and family.
You don't have the right, much less the duty, to protect me from myself.

______________________________________

Well done list.
Hope you don't mind my nitpicking asides on a few items.

[jonestown]

freepatriot32 wrote:

"My rights extend only to the point where they infringe on your rights.

So, for example, your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose. If you violate my nose rights, I'll feel free to respond in kind."

---

Speaking only to the given example, that is not good enough for me.
Prudence, a much written about legal concept, would suggest otherwise.

Of course I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations. That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.

I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense.

A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.
4 jackbob

---

Yes indeed, threats can be an initiation of force.

But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy.
Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy just as it limits conservative philosophy.

There is room for 'prudence' in both.

[jackbob]

Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy...

Absolutely not. The Constitution has no authority what so ever over libertarian philosophy and is totally incapable of limiting it in the slightest.

There is room for 'prudence' in both.

"Room for," - yes. But their is a very well argued concept among libertarians that "your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose." To repeat the concept using a different example, "your right on your property to point your loaded rifle at me on my property ends when you pull the trigger." In both cases, I say that such rights ended at an earlier point.

The flaw or dilemma, is that this is not a settled matter on purely libertarian grounds.

[jonestown]

You wrote:

I recognize that 'prudence' is not a libertarian concept, as it is impossible to objectively ascertain its exact limitations.
That to me is the number one dilemma or flaw in the libertarian philosophy. There must be room for some prudence.
I therefore state that your right to swing your fist ends just before your movement would necessitate a prudent person from taking immediate action in self defense.
A threat of imminent physical harm to the person of an individual (not property), is an initiation of force.

Yes indeed, threats can be an initiation of force.
But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy.

Constitutional law limits libertarian philosophy just as it limits conservative philosophy.
There is room for 'prudence' in both.

Absolutely not. The Constitution has no authority what so ever over libertarian philosophy and is totally incapable of limiting it in the slightest.

All of us, conservatives, libertarians, whatever, -- who live in the USA are bound to support our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. If your philosophy leads you to take action that violates Constitutional principles, you will pay the price.

There is room for 'prudence' in both philosophies.

"Room for," - yes. But their is a very well argued concept among libertarians that "your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with my nose." To repeat the concept using a different example, "your right on your property to point your loaded rifle at me on my property ends when you pull the trigger." In both cases, I say that such rights ended at an earlier point.

So am I.. Why don't you try reading & understanding what I've written?

The flaw or dilemma, is that this is not a settled matter on purely libertarian grounds.

?? -- Who said it was? -- I agreed, threats can be an initiation of force.

But that is not a dilemma or flaw in libertarian philosophy. You simply have a flaw in your understanding of american libertarianism. We honor our US Constitution.