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.

[thoughtomator]

Compared to the essential duty of defense, roads are a silly thing for the federal government to be involved with. When we have hundreds of fighters but not one close enough to NYC to react to the incoming jets, I think a back-to-basics approach to reform is appropriate. When the federal government is so gargantuan and complex that such a basic function is overlooked so negligently, trimming powers is definitely in order. Coincidentally, we happen to have a document already that has some good ideas on what the feds should really be doing... it's called the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America - good for more than just a few Amendments

[Roscoe]

Interstate highways, interstate commerce, public welfare served.

No violation of the Constutution there.

[verity]

And libertarians have absolutely no sense of humor!

[Eagle Eye]

And libertarians have absolutely no sense of humor!

As if you do.

That's a sleazy trick you are trying. You want to make 'hit and run' one line, no brain, smart-ass remarks, then when you get slammed you say, "JOKING!" and then play the hurt victim role.

What a loser you appear to be.

[Eagle Eye]

During the pre-election debates and discussions on FR, many freepers told me that they were confident that Bush was simply saying what was expedient and that once in office he would do things 'his' way.

Unlike his supporters, I believed Bush to be a man of his word and that he would do what he said he would do. I believed that he would expand government as he pledged to do. So far, it seems, I've not been incorrect.

[thusevertotyrants]

Tolls for their use

[Roscoe]

Facile.

[Libertarian_4_eva]

We hollered when clinton abused Executive Privelge. Why accept it now?

Its ok when your team is abuseing executive privelge. What part of that do you not understand? Its ok when a republican does it if Rush tells us its ok yet when a democrat does it then its wrong. Selective morality.

[thusevertotyrants]

Quite. When government provides a service (i.e. - building and maintaining public roads) they may charge a fee, to be paid for by the parties who use the service (i.e. - those who drive on said roads). What the government may NOT do, is steal from the people as they see fit in order to redistribute wealth to those who did not produce it

[Roscoe]

Still facile.

There are public roads in existence. What happens to them under libertarian doctrine?

[Joe Bonforte]

"And libertarians have absolutely no sense of humor!"

Au contraire! Many folks think Dave Barry is the funniest writer in America, and he is libertarian. PJ O'Rourke is probably the second funniest, and he describes himself as a libertarian-leaning conservative.

Now, I'll admit that libertarians get a bit peeved at some of the silly libertarian bashing they have to endure, like a lot of that on this thread. So seeing them in these discussions does not tend to bring out their humorous side.

[thusevertotyrants]

They become toll roads - Their upkeep is financed by those who use them. What dont you understand?

[Roscoe]

They become toll roads

Just wave the magic wand, huh? Who owns them?

[thusevertotyrants]

Who administers the tolls? No one entity The Interstates go to the Fed, state roads go to the state, local roads to municipalities or counties. Now, if a certain locale doesnt keep their roads in good shape and therefore they lose business in that community, the local government is acountable to their voters. If state roads are not kept up and states lose business, then the state government is accountable to their voters.

[Roscoe]

Who administers the tolls?

Who owns the existing public roads? Simple question.

[thusevertotyrants]

I would think it rather obvious that noone but the owner of a road could charge tolls on that road. See above

[Roscoe]

I would think it rather obvious that noone but the owner of a road could charge tolls on that road.

And who would that owner be? Who owns the existing public roads?

I don't think you know.

[thusevertotyrants]

You are now asking a different question. I told you who WOULD own the roads in a libertarian system, not who owns the roads at present.

[Roscoe]

Then you advocate theft. You don't know who owns the public roads.

[bray]

Republican=Republican

Independent=Republican who swore to their father they would NEVER be a Republican

Libertarian=Independent who wants legalized dope

Pray for GW and the Truth