The essence of liberty: What is it that really makes one a libertarian?

LP News ^ | March 1995 | David F. Nolan

[jackbob]

html> LP News Mar95 - The essence of liberty: What is it that really makes one a libertarian?

March 1995

The essence of liberty: What is it that really makes one a libertarian? By David F. Nolan As a founder of the Libertarian Party and editor-in-chief of California Liberty, I am often asked how to tell if someone is "really" a libertarian. This question has arisen more often than usual in the past few months, as more and more politicians are starting to use libertarian-sounding rhetoric-and it's a point worth raising. There are probably as many different definitions of the word "libertarian" as there are people who claim the label. These range from overly broad ("anyone who calls himself a libertarian is one") to impossibly doctrinaire ("only those who agree with every word in the party platform are truly anointed"). My own definition is that in order to be considered a libertarian, at least in the political context, an individual must adhere without compromise to five key points. Ideally, of course, we'd all be in agreement on everything. But we're not, and probably never will be. Debate is likely to continue indefinitely on such matters as abortion, foreign policy, and whether, when, and how various government programs can be discontinued or privatized. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone is sound on these five points, he/she is de facto a libertarian; if he fails on even one of the five, he isn't. What, then, are the "indispensable five"-the points of no compromise? You Own Yourself First and foremost, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period. Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your own well-being. Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care. Most of us choose to help one another voluntarily, for a variety of reasons-and that's as it should be-but "forced compassion" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The Right to Self-Defense Self-ownership implies the right to self-defense. Libertarians yield to no one in their support for our right as individuals to keep and bear arms. We wish only that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said, "The right to self-defense being inalienable . . . " instead of that stuff about a "well-regulated militia." Anyone who thinks that government-any government-has the right to disarm its citizens is NOT a libertarian! No "Criminal Possession" Laws In fact, libertarians believe that individuals have the right to own and use anything-gold, guns, marijuana, sexually explicit material-so long as they do not harm others through force or the threat of force. Laws criminalizing the simple possession of anything are tailor-made for police states; it is all too easy to plant a forbidden substance in someone's home, car, or pocket. Libertarians are as tough on crime-real crime-as anyone. But criminal possession laws are an affront to liberty, whatever the rhetoric used to defend them. No Taxes on Productivity In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity-i.e. an "income" tax-and no libertarian supports this type of taxation. What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you'd state the price at which you'd be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax. A Sound Money System The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money-money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State-is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power. Conclusion The five points enumerated here are not a complete, comprehensive prescription for freedom . . . but they would take us most of the way. A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit, and which imposes no criminal penalties for the mere possession and peaceful use of anything, is one that almost all libertarians would be comfortable with.

[Protagoras]

Libertarianism is all about being opposed to tyranny

I totally misread your original post and now I realize why. I read the word "tyranny" as "anarchy". I have no idea why my minds eye read it that way. It was inexcusable mistake.

I apologise.

[carenot]

Remove a legally abortable fetus from the mother and it can not live, cant feed itself, cant breathe on its own .. therefore it is a total dependant. A five year old can feed itself and doesnt need the mother's blood to live

How 'bout let's remove a week old or a month old baby from whoever is caring for IT.

Throw a five year old on the street and see if he can feed himself. Or maybe dump him in the country or in the desert.

I could feed myself, but I am old and remember about what you can and can't eat. I know how to get water. My Daddy taught me.

I have no idea how old you are. Could you eat and find water and shelter anywhere?

Ofcorse babies need their mother's womb.

After that they can be on their own.

Lot's of people like me would pick them out of the dumpster, take them home and tend to them.

Tell us and we will do it.

[carenot]

I voted for GWB, and if the elections were held again, I would do it again, I would hate to have seen what Gore would be doing right now. The problem is, after 9/11, they are trying to run amok and act like leftists.

I would never vote for Gore and I didn't vote for President Bush.

But if Gore were President what would everyone be saying now?

[carenot]

Agreed.

[AKbear]

I agree with you, in fact, I see this as our role.

Someone has to bring forth an idea that is so far outside the possibility that for a member of one of the two major parties to bring it up would be political suicide. The LP, and libertarians in general, are the ones to mention, say, drug legalization. 30 years ago, it would be unheard of in most places in the "civilized" world to even mention it. Now we have elected polititians saying it, and several "civilized" countries in Europe headed in that direction. It was the libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and such who first broached the idea.

We are beginning to see some other things moving in the direction of freedom, as well. Slowly, oh so painfully slowly, we are seeing movement on the 2nd Amendment. Just the idea that taxes are truly the taxpayers money was espoused during the presidential campaign, that had not been heard in quite a while.

I think we may be headed in the right direction, but we need to keep pushing. We keep seeing some setbacks, such as the so-called "Patriot Bill," but even that can be overcome. The GOP, as a force for change, is almost laughable. They will go which ever way the wind is blowing. We just need to keep the political winds blowing toward more freedom.

[Cato]

President Bush IS a Republican.
(don't act like one)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More and more AMERICANS are coming to realize this,

The REPOs are coming to be nothing more than DEMOs in Conservative clothing.

I still can not FORGET OR FORGIVE that Mr. Bush's first official act upon becoming President
was to appoint an admitted Happy to be liason to the AIDS/GAY/ COMMUNEity and show to all our children
that The Happys have the official approval of our President by this act.

Even Xlintoon would never have dared this.

Anyway BS on this blantant, in your face showing of official support for this crap.

On well, things could be worse right????????????????????

It might have been a Libertarian President to plow this New Ground as we careen into the 21st Century. LOL!

NAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Libertarians don't support special rights for anyone.

CATO

I'm back

You take care and have a Merry Christmas.

[The Shootist]

A constant mantra that Thomas Jefferson's writings mean that the fate of the Republic hangs on the right to smoke dope and do drugs anytime, anywhere.

Are you constipated, experiencing PMS or just a troll?

[Roscoe]

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and The Number Of The Beast.

He may have brought it up other novels as well, but those are two that I remember.

[Roscoe]

You might find the arguments in this fairly brief Supreme Court decision of interest.

[JakeWyld]

Nam,

What's your problem? I would say we libertarians could handle your elementary volcabulary...so why not explain what problems you find with the people calling themselves libertarians on this forum...we'll try to sort it out for you.

[takenoprisoner]

For me, being a libertarian means I am opposed to:
Tyranny, ie RR and Waco.
JBT's kicking down someone's door in the wee hours of the morn as they sleep... to kill them as they lay in their partly conscious state should they awake and attempt to defend themselves against the unknown intruders.
Roadblocks and check points.
Invasions of privacy.
Searches without warrants
Mounds upon mounds of unconstitutional fed govt regulation
Anti-discrimination laws that discriminate
Taxation without representation,since certainly my views are not represented
Conducting wars without declaration from congress
Just for starters...

Now there has been a lot of chatter about what Harry Browne said concerning 911. Sometimes the truth of the matter is hard to swallow. But those terrorist bombers didn't just bomb us because we were just sitting here lil ole innocent folk minding our own business. Anyone who would deny that denies the factual reality. It's an ugly truth and Harry had the balls to speak it. Our influence brought them here. That's a fact. Were they wrong? Of course. Did we deserve it? Of course not.

They hate us because we support Israel. And we support Israel because if you will recall, these are the folks Hitler tried to exterminate. We helped settle them there amongst their Arab cousins and helped them re-form their lost nation...continuing to do so...In a place they had been scattered from by other conquerors in the past. Nonetheless, a place their God, and our God too if you are Christian, had promised them.

But wait, there is a catch. You know the story of, was it Issac and Ishmael? Whoever they were, this war continues and we are smack dab in the middle of it at this juncture a few thousand years later. There is no end to this conflict...as it seems to be eternal. Heck, it probably will take the return of God to finalize.

So here we are, victims of this ancient conflict brought to our shores. Whether or not we believe we are at fault is not relevent. These muslim terrorists obviously believe we are and that is all that is relevent at this juncture. And I believe that was Harry's point.

Now I don't know if Harry said we owe Bin Laden an apology as has been postulated here by some. But I know that Roscoe can bring it here if he did because that is what Roscoe is most excellent at. How bout it Roscoe?

And before you ask, yes I am in favor of the actions being taken. We have been attacked. However, it would be in line with our Constitution if Congress declared war against the nations providing haven to the terrorists who attacked us rather than just giving the President a limited power to conduct some undeclared war.

[Economist_MA]

A Sound Money System

The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money-money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State-is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.

Interesting, so people with an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of money and banking cannot be Libertarians?

[Roscoe]

Pravda

[cornelis]

You own yourself

This may be libertarian, but what does it mean? What does it mean to own your own body and mind? If it means anything, it means that we are responsible for ourselves. If it means that we can do with ourselves as we wish, I would reconsider. However much we may desire freedom from the constraint as in "no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble" we should remember that first of all, the only way we reach maturity is to begin in life under the contraint of our parents, and if we mature, we are resposible enough to place those constraints on ourselves, apart from the constraint of others. In short, ourselves belong to the strictures of human life. There is no planet of pure freedom.

Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care.

And then again, of course we are obligated to each other. Perhaps not under a political law, but certainly under a moral law, freely chosen. Again, parents are obligated. And the highest moral law is to love your enemy.

[carenot]

Thanks.

I get several e-mails from Find-Law, every day.

I have posted a few of the articles.

The only thing I worry about Alan Keyes is how he stands on the 4th amendment.

I truly don't care about illegal drugs.

But police or BATF busting in someone's house, I really do have a problem.

People have been killed, innocent people. They busted in the wrong house.

Kids were killed, old men were killed, dogs were killed.

Never mind that.

Do we have the death penalty for dealing or using illegal drugs?

[takenoprisoner]

Interesting, so people with an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of money and banking cannot be Libertarians?

Well let's see, the fed prints the money....then fed sets the allowable interest rate. Is there or is there not more money in print than there is to back it up in gold and silver?

If there is more in print than there is to back it up, are we or are we not reliant upon the fed to back it up?

[Roscoe]

Land ownership has been described as a "bundle of rights." The establishment and protection of those rights involve governmental costs.

Perhaps "insurance" is a more appropriate analogy than "rent."

[carenot]

Well let's see, the fed prints the money....then fed sets the allowable interest rate. Is there or is there not more money in print than there is to back it up in gold and silver?

If there is more in print than there is to back it up, are we or are we not reliant upon the fed to back it up?

I thought about what you just said.

Get rid of the Federal Reserve. Get rid of the Income Tax.

Fight for HR2525.

How much money would it save the taxpayers if there were no IRS?

[Economist_MA]

Why would you want to tie the money supply to an arbitrary commodity? The supply of which is not stable but subject to shocks, and therefore to rapid price changes? How do you factor the velocity of money in (i.e. the speed at which money ciculates)? How do you deal with the frequent deflations a gold standard inevitably implies?

Do you honestly think that it is a coincidence that we experienced the most rapid economic growth after leaving the gold standard? That all developed countries use a fractional reserve system?

The pure fact that a central bank could theoretically wreck havoc with the money supply is no argument whatsoever against fractional reserve banking. By the same logic we shouldn't have an army because it could theoretically attack ours own cities. In fact an independent central bank has been shown over and over again to be the most efficient means to achieve economic stability. Only fools would try to move away from it.

[secretagent]

Thanks for the references.