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.

[jackbob]

I rest my case.

Motion to Separate and Dismiss

Re: ThomasJefferson, Honest Rational Freepers, et al.

Vs.

Roscoe, et al.

Comes now jackbob on a third party motion to dismiss charges against Roscoe for lack of evidence.

The quote of Roscoe: "Oops, too late." can be shown to have been a fair and decent quote, with no intent to lower FR standards or do harm to any potential discussion.

A closer examination of the evidence will show that he posted that reply at 12:48pm (and was most likely meant to be addressed to jackbob). As six minutes earlier there was a posted invitation to him, that will put his reply in proper context.

In reply #983 to the article "Will Libertarians bolt The Stupid Party?" the following invitation was put forth to Roscoe by one jackbob;

I just posted an article on what it is to be a libertarian. I know you'll want to hurry over to crap on it. If you move fast enough, maybe you can be the first reply.

It is clear in this instance (and only this one), that jackbob, and not Roscoe has rightfully earned the full condemnation all good faithed Freepers. For no good Freeper would have ever made such an invitation.

[Roscoe]

LOL

[takenoprisoner]

I didn't see where HB said we owe UBL an apology. Course depending upon the perceptions of the masses, and from his stated views, such could be erroneously inferred as has been postulated here.

Nonetheless, I did find another interesting article there. Is this American Hypocrisy?

[Roscoe]

Taxation is low, simple-- and contains a surprise. The Federal government is supported by a head tax paid by the States , and is mostly for military and foreign affairs. This state derives most of it's revenue from real estate taxes. It is a uniform rate set annually, with no property exempted, not even churches, hospitals, or schools-- or roads; the best roads are toll roads. The surprise lies in this: _The_owner_appraises_his_own_ property._ There is a sting in the tail: _Anyone_ can buy property _against_the_owner's_wishes_ at the appraisal the owner placed on it. The owner can hang on only by raising his appraisal _at_once_ to a figure so high that no buyer wants it-- and pay _three_years_back_taxes_ at his _new_ appraisal.

TNOTB

[jackbob]

Then join the LP.

[takenoprisoner]

The pure fact that a central bank could theoretically wreck havoc with the money supply is no argument whatsoever against fractional reserve banking

You nailed it!

[secretagent]

Thanks!

[think_like_a_wolf]

This looks like a move to deflect critism from Bush's trashing of the Presidential Records Act. Under the act, Reagan papers became public property in Jan 2001. Bush is trying to hide the papers from public view. Why? Think like a wolf.

[Protagoras]

Motion granted :-) (just this once)

[Alan Chapman]

You came very close to giving us a Gore Presidency. - Dane

Bush has given us a Gore presidency just fine all on his own.

I couldn't tell the difference between the two during their debates. Even when the moderator asked them what differentiated the two they just sort of looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders.

I don't see Bush rolling back any of the Clinton/Gore big government programs. No big suprise. He wasn't elected to reduce government. Over the last year I've watched Bush sign huge spending increases into law to continue funding all those wonderful alphabet agencies that send hundreds of billions of dollars down the sewer.

[TopQuark]

In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. For something to be paid for as-used, it first has to be created.

Without taxes, public highways would not exist (markets fail to provide public goods). And only a robber baron would be able to build private roads of any significance, in which case the interests of people who need a road would still not be served.

Libertarian non-taxation. Nice romantic idea --- like Knighthood. Unfortunately, we are well past the Middle Ages.

[Roscoe]

Piracy, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[TopQuark]

Piracy, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.
-- Ambrose Bierce Which in this context means what?

[Roscoe]

Believing in unrestricted commerce seems to one of the things that makes one a libertarian.

[TopQuark]

Thanks, Roscoe. Why do you think he did not mention "free trade?"

[Roscoe]

He being Bierce? I'm not sure that the term "free trade" was in common usage when he wrote.

[jackbob]

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

Let me throw an additional proviso on to the question. If Gore were President, having done the exact same things that President Bush has done, what would everyone be saying now?

[TopQuark]

No, no --- I was not clear, sorry. I meant, why does David Nolan in the posted article not mention free trade?

[jackbob]

Some libertarians believe that a baby yet unborn is not a person or human being.

Actually its a little more complicated than that. The question is not whether it is a person or not. The question is whether it is an individual person or individual humanbeing. It might also be noted that it does not just end there. This is just the starting point for various libertarian theories on the topic (i.e. some Randian Libertarians assert a necessity to assert ones claim to life, some Christian libertarians reserve rights till after the first breath of life with entry of the spirit into its body, etc, etc, etc.).

My position is that if there is any chance whatsoever that it even might be a life...

My position is that if there is an chance it might suffer pain, then error on the side of not introducing pain.

[TopQuark]

In honor of your post, Roscoe:
----------------------
AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914?)
THE NEW DECALOGUE

1     Have but one God: thy knees were sore
2     If bent in prayer to three or four.

3     Adore no images save those
4     The coinage of thy country shows.

5     Take not the Name in vain. Direct
6     Thy swearing unto some effect.

7     Thy hand from Sunday work be held--
8     Work not at all unless compelled.

9     Honor thy parents, and perchance
10   Their wills thy fortunes may advance.

11   Kill not--death liberates thy foe
12   From persecution's constant woe.

13   Kiss not thy neighbor's wife. Of course
14   There's no objection to divorce.

15   To steal were folly, for 'tis plain
16   In cheating there is greater pain.

17   Bear not false witness. Shake your head
18   And say that you have "heard it said."

19   Who stays to covet ne'er will catch
20   An opportunity to snatch.