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.

[gjenkins]

"being STUPID???"

Screw you neanderthal.

[beavus]

Don't bother with this NAMMARINE kid. I've run into him before. Having flunked 3rd grade vocabulary there's no telling what the he11 he's talking about and its unlikely he can read most of the words you typed.

[jackbob]

...others here on FR promote suppression of freedom.

I really can't agree with you. They seem to buzz around so aimlessly, that they really don't promote anything. They just create noise, which tends to annoy and slightly side track those who do promote freedom.

[thusevertotyrants]

WOW! A little harsh, but not inaccurate. If we're so fired up about a war on drugs, why not start with alcohol and tobacco? Oh wait, those are taxed by the government.

Part of being a libertarian is recognizing the hypocrisy of the mainstream parties and calling them on it.

[thusevertotyrants]

hey now - dont you know you can only have your freedom if you do it their way (i.e. - the moral, just and right way?)

[MarkWar]

>What is it that really makes one a libertarian?

It's either the funny hats, or the fact that they weigh the same as ducks...

Mark W.

[carenot]

I might only add, that the bashers here at FR are like honey bees that have lost their stinger, and have no hive to return to.

That is called drones. They are neccesary to fertilize a new queen. In good times they are allowed in any hive. The workers have to feed them.
In the winter they are kicked out and they die.

There are always more hatched in the spring to go to freeload off of other hives.

Yes, we have to have drones, else we would't have bees to pollinate our crops.

Hmm, sounds like feminism to me.

Never mind the sheeple, watch out for the beeple.

[Dane]

Do you really believe that Bush is seeking justice by sandbagging clinton into slumber so that Bush can blindside him later? I'd cheer it if he does, but I don't believe that's what he's doing.

Not sandbagging but playing their game. It is a given that any information to Burton's committee will make a bee line to the Washington Post or New York Times "laundry". Bush says no and who puts up the biggest fuss? Barney Frank of all people(a member of Burton's committee)

As you can see the "mainstream press" reported this but has not shown outrage. The reason being if the press screams "outrage", Bush and Ashcroft bring the information out bypassing Burton's committee and making a "spectacle"(i.e a shining light) of the Clinton information. You could say this is a "standoff" at the present moment, but Bush/Ashcroft hold the weapon(the Clinton information).

Clinton and the democrats used Burton's committee, where they would give the misdeeds to Burton, Waxman/Frank faxed the information to the Washington Post and New York Times. The press "launders" the information, and they can say they reported it(from the leaks provided by Waxman/Franks).

You may not like the "game", but Bush/Ashcroft have not let out their best shot and keeping the artillery for when it is needed(i.e 2004).

[thusevertotyrants]

So, now the object of government is to win elections. How noble

[TightSqueeze]

The mother is the guardian of the fetus. Now, reread to the 1st tenet .............

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.

I was hoping that this did in fact cover the pro-life issue, but I believe it could be construed either way. The way you worded your response makes it obvious, as a guardian you would in fact be obligated to protect the life entrusted to you.

[carenot]

This libertarian thinks that abortion is murder.

As such it should be in the state laws, not the US Government.

[secretagent]

Interesting, Share the Heinlein book or article title, if you the reference. The idea of self-assessed land might have come even earlier from Georgist groups. (Henry George)

[thusevertotyrants]

No, but you are granted the right of choice in the fetus' stead. The freedom to choose, that's all that is involved. Any other arguement involves using someone else's morals to make YOUR decision, and that violates the 1st tenet

[Eagle Eye]

So it's ok to abuse exceutive privelege when it gets us what we want?

It's ok to raise caine when the other party abuses a power, but it's good strategy when 'our' party does it?

Isn't this classic 'ends justify means' tactics?

[thusevertotyrants]

If you believe it's murder you have the right to choose not to enagge in the act. It need not be law - Actions that are harmful or "bad" do not have to be illegal in order for logical intelligent people to refrain from them

[AKbear]

Never mind the sheeple, watch out for the beeple.

LOL. Fear the beeple!

[VaBthang4]

A Lower-middle class upbringing, High School Education, a rebellious spirit and constant search for an excuse or justification.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Nolan:...no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society"

Gcruse:As a small 'l' libertarian, I back away from this right away. Taxes are necessary to fund the military for national defense.

I think Nolan basically agrees with you, when he writes:

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.

This is gold bug nonsense and has got nothing to do with individual liberty.

He may not like money without backing, but if people want to trade it for goods and services, that's their decision. Yeah, this one is kind of silly as a pillar of libertarianism.

[AKbear]

Decent article, but I do have a problem with his view on taxes. Land, being property, should be inviolable.

The founders had a fairly decent idea for taxation. They even put it into the Constitution. Tax the states in proportion to their population. How the states collected or assesed the tax would be up to the states. The fed.gov would have nothing to do with each individual taxpayer.

Other than that, not a bad essay.

[carenot]

Death to TOBACCOISTS!

Uh, 'scuse me. I do cigarettes and beer. They are still a legal way for me to kill myself.