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]

Yes, one of the roles the libertarians have on the political stage is to bring forth new or unpopular ideas for the advancement of freedom, that are at present political suicide ideas for members of the major party. Where done successfully, the major parties can propose compromise positions from them, which makes what is put forward more reasonable than the public otherwise might accept. But in my way of seeing it, this is only a good fall back position for libertarians.

[jackbob]

...yes I am in favor of the actions being taken.

I too am kind of infavor of the action being taken to date. I do not however believe we should start going into other countries based on some conjured up evidence. I also think it silly, the notion that we can wage war against terrorists in general.

On the other hand, I believe that we should be going after the political leaders, especially those hiding under the cover of a pseudo religion, who call for others to commit acts of terrorism, or grant the martyr status after such acts, is perfectly legitimate. But our American propaganda industry has been side stepping these individuals infavor of going after leaders of nations who have condemned terrorism.

I being no fan of Harry Brown, find no major disagreement with him on anything he has said on the topic thus far. I just see the issue slightly different.

[Roscoe]

Good question. Free Trade advocacy has been on the libertarian hit parade for decades.

Perhaps Nolan felt its mention wouldn't serve to differentiate Libertarians from Republicans and Democrats.

[jackbob]

A very wonderful reply, consistent with all libertarian principles. Its nice to hear from a libertarian who understands the essence of what it means to be a good libertarian. I agree with you raising issue to the precise words used by Nolan. He could have worded those lines better. Then again, Mr nolan might not be a nice considerate person. Though I think he is, and just used a poor choice of words. In either case, Nolan was right on, and so are you. We libertarians can learn a lot from each other. I hope to see more of you refined tuning of our choic of wording in the future.

[jackbob]

Then I'm condemned!

(I hope only this once :>)

[jackbob]

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.

The negative picture you paint here is one possibility of what could happen. But from reading it, it becomes clear that you are completely unfamiliar with libertarian solutions, and how they work. Moreover, you do not address the advanced or interim solutions, but then the libertarian movement as a whole also comes up short in this regard. In either case, you might spend a little time researching libertarian solutions before jumping in and responding to that which you know nothing of.

[Godel]

being STUPID???

Are you aware that interjecting ad hominem attacks into an otherwise thought provoking discussion leads one to the conclusion that you are the "stupid" individual. Why not try contributing to the discussion in an intelligent way, or GASP, actually adressing one of the five points in the article and why you think it's such a bad idea?

Its really just so childish to login to a board and listen to inane ad hominen insults. What's next, libertarians are doo-doo heads?

[Roscoe]

But from reading it, it becomes clear that you are completely unfamiliar with libertarian solutions, and how they work.

OK, how would libertarians deal with existing public roads?

[redrock]

Excellent article!!!

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[NC_Libertarian]

The LP's plank on abortion is un-libertarian. If you don't have the right to live, how can you have any rights?

If they can't say as much, I wish they would just state that under the constitution it is a state's issue as are all common crimes.

[redrock]

I see you're STILL consumed with wanting to know what's in everybody's urine.......

You need to get out more often.

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[Protagoras]

Actually its a little more complicated than that

I kept it simple, for a reason. As far as I am concerned all the rest is just theoretical dancing around. It is a real issue of life and death and all the speculation in the world about humans vs people, souls or no souls, is nonsense that can never be settled in this life. Meanwhile, people either are or might be getting murdered.

The pain thing doesn't get it for me either. A bullet in the brain is probably painless too.

[poet]

Their ability to check books in the library?

[jackbob]

I'm at a disadvantage here. JR has placed very stern restriction on arguing the issue here at FR. But I think I can say why it is not simple. Even if you are right, killing is not murder unless the killer can be reasonably expected to recognize it as such. The last time I saw a poll on that subject (about three or four years ago I think) way less than half of the Republicans considered it murder, though more than half were for criminalizing it). At any rate Libertarianism speaks not directly to human rights, but rather to individual rights. I suppose you could argue that when the woman becomes pregnant, she ceases in part to be a full individual, and to that degree, she must share her individual rights. I don't agree, but I think it would make a strong argument.

[jackbob]

OK, how would libertarians deal with existing public roads?

It is my opinion that Libertarians would deal with existing public roads pretty much the way the D and Rs do (just a little more openly about it). Of course their are a number of end state solutions, as well as interim state solutions that are being advocated, which caucuses will argue over and refine as the movement grows. Since I do not agree with the most popular of the end state solutions, which are the ones most often written about, I'm not the one to give a presentation on them. Besides, I'm not going to do your homework for you. But nor will I pass up an opportunity to argue the merits of one proposal over another.

There is one comment, I'm biting my tongue to make since you raised the question. Much of the popular libertarian theory says (or at least suggests), that the government has no right to own land, roads, or highways. While I've read a lot arguments on how it would be better if the government didn't own such, I've yet to see a principled argument against such ownership. I've also not seen a nondependent on other factors argument for such privatization.

[Roscoe]

I'm not entirely ignorant of libertarian arguments, and I've never seen a discussion of what they would do about existing public roads that managed to be more detailed than "privatize them."

Much of the popular libertarian theory says (or at least suggests), that the government has no right to own land, roads, or highways. While I've read a lot arguments on how it would be better if the government didn't own such, I've yet to see a principled argument against such ownership.

Neither me.

[thoughtomator]

Deja vu all over again... which one of these guys is DonMorgan?

[Roscoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/profile?warp=X&h=DonMorgan&.submit=View

[thoughtomator]

Me, I'm a federal libertarian - the national government should be concerning itself with its constitutionally assigned roles, i.e. providing fighter cover for New York City, rather than being distracted with silly stuff like roads. If ye want roads, the states are capable enough of building them.

[Roscoe]

...silly stuff like roads...

Silly comment.