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.

[A.J.Armitage]

and dont associate with those that promote slavery, and dont engage in commerce with those who are involved with slavery ....

But don't do anything to stop them from violating the rights of the slaves. What kind of libertarism is that?

Not mine, that's for sure.

[thusevertotyrants]

Civil liberties have everything to do with it. Protection of the five year old in question is the reasoning the government uses to get themselves involved in family affairs. If your point is to say a five year old is the same as an unborn fetus, I find that arguement rather laughable. 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

[thusevertotyrants]

No, you cvan take up any cause you want. Just dont see it as your prerogative to legislate that anyone else take up the cause as well. The correct philosophy isn't "live and let live" (boy, the pro-lifers would chomp at the bit at that one) it's Choose and let choose.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I don't think Browne has actually said that we should apologize to ObL. However, he has been against a military response to WTC. Here's a link. to an article by him.

[thusevertotyrants]

The reason a libertarian opposes slavery and would choose to stand up for the rights of those enslaved is that they sanction the right of that slave to be free, which follows from their demand that they themselves be free. This does not equate with sanctioning government tyranny to control or monitor the actions of a people

[texlok]

What is it that really makes one a libertarian basher?

Supporting an AG that wants to read your e-mail.
Supporting an administration that wants to federalize the school system.
Supporting an administration that wants to cover for clinton.
Supporting an administration that wants to label any critics of government as terrorist-supporters.
Supporting an administration that would like to be able to monitor religious groups based on heresay alone.
Supporting an administration that times the release of something which would get them a lot of criticism the same day they release OBL's tape.
Supporting an administration that wants to use a tragedy to make a power grab.

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.

[Protagoras]

This is what passes for intelligent comment on the article you posted by the all usual suspects. This is a thread about what the author of the article thinks makes one a libertarian. The following are what passes for refutation of libertarian principles.

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.

2 posted on 12/15/01 12:42 PM Pacific by Dane

Yeah riiight. Libertarians such as Harry Browne(Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000) basically say that the WTC atrocities were America's fault and we should sheepishly apologize to OBL.

4 posted on 12/15/01 12:48 PM Pacific by Dane

Notice that it only took til his second post to attempt to change the subject

Oops, too late.

5 posted on 12/15/01 12:48 PM Pacific by Roscoe

being STUPID???

7 posted on 12/15/01 12:53 PM Pacific by NAMMARINE

WHY??? after all we are only talking to libertarians.

10 posted on 12/15/01 1:01 PM Pacific by NAMMARINE

After reading a plethora of Harry Browne's(Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000) "it's America's fault" rants, that is basically what he says.

12 posted on 12/15/01 1:03 PM Pacific by Dane

I rest my case.

[carenot]

A libertarian looks at this question and asks - "Should YOU be forced to sacrifice YOUR individual liberties because someone else has not exercised THEIR individual liberties repsonsibly?"

Naw, I ain't sayin' that.
It's called wellfare.

Maybe they are trying to cut down the babies (cut up the babies), to cut down the cost of wellfare.

Yeah, RIGHT!

[thusevertotyrants]

Welfare is charity. Charity should be by choice, not legislated

[carenot]

The point the cartoon was making is that if you are an already born person you have rights, but if not, you have no rights.

[carenot]

I say only that the solution must NEVER involve violating the individual liberties of the innocent

I think I am preaching to the choir, but nothing can be more innocent than an unborn baby.

[Protagoras]

If the only solution to the wrongful,irresponsible, or criminal acts of some segments of society is tyranny, then I say the solution is far far worse than the problem.

It is not the only solution and it is in no way the libertarian solution. Where you got this moronic idea is anyones guess, but it has nothing whatever to do with libertarian philosophy.

To me, this isn't an unfair way to summarize the libertarian philosophy

Of course it is unfair, because it is built on a false premise. It is totally incorrect.

[A.J.Armitage]

Civil liberties have everything to do with it. Protection of the five year old in question is the reasoning the government uses to get themselves involved in family affairs.

Killing is not a family matter.

If your point is to say a five year old is the same as an unborn fetus, I find that arguement rather laughable. 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

Your initial point can make no such distinction; if you accept parents as the guardians of five year olds, it works just as well. Notice the fact that you've argued for making it legal for parents to kill five year olds. Now, there are twenty-seven year olds who can't live independently. They can lift the food paid for by others into their mouths, but not earn it themselves. There are paraplegics who are fully as dependent as the unborn. And the blood of mothers and their babies never mixes; they can have different blood types, and the heart is one of the first organs to start working.

[carenot]

I forgot!

President Bush IS a Republican.

(don't act like one)

[thusevertotyrants]

Libertarianism is all about being opposed to tyranny

[Maurice Tift]

Excellent article. I consider myself a Libertarian.

[A.J.Armitage]

No, you cvan take up any cause you want. Just dont see it as your prerogative to legislate that anyone else take up the cause as well. The correct philosophy isn't "live and let live" (boy, the pro-lifers would chomp at the bit at that one) it's Choose and let choose.

It's the "let choose" part you seem not to get. The basic libertarian idea is that you have the right to do anything you want with your person and property, as long as you don't violate the right of others to do the same. Without that limit, you're no libertarian at all, but a Hobbesian, and your choice is the war of all against all, or leviathan.

After you realized you'd just been arguing in favor of slavery, you reversed yourself with the following:

The reason a libertarian opposes slavery and would choose to stand up for the rights of those enslaved is that they sanction the right of that slave to be free, which follows from their demand that they themselves be free. This does not equate with sanctioning government tyranny to control or monitor the actions of a people

What about the right of the unborn to live? Protecting it isn't tyrannical control any more than outlawing murder is. But then, you said that if something is murder, you should simply refrain from doing it yourself, not stop it from happening, so I suppose you think that is tyrannical control. You're forgetting the one limit on liberty: the equal liberty of others.

[carenot]

and dont associate with those that promote slavery, and dont engage in commerce with those who are involved with slavery ....

This has bothered me lately. I don't know why.

My Daddy told me about the King Ranch in Texas when I was a little kid.
He said that Mr. King went across the river to a dying village in Mexico and told the people there that he would feed them, have a doctor for them and give them a safe place to live.

The whole village was welcome, and would be tended to.

The men able to work were expected to.

Last I heard, they still live at the King Ranch.

My question is, was-is that slavery?

[Protagoras]

I currently classify myself as a reluctant conservative this alliance is founded on a single point of no compromise defined as pro-life that I share with other conservatives. Where do the libertarian’s stand on this issue and is it an uncompromising plank in the party? Politically I agree with the "indispensable five" if in fact one can be both libertarian and pro-life.

One can certainly be a libertarian and be pro-life (anti-abortion). Many, many are. I am one.

Here is an explanation of the reason that libertarians (and others) cannot agree on the laws concerning abortion;

Some libertarians believe that a baby yet unborn is not a person or human being. They call it a fetus sometimes and think that it is a group of cells without being an individual life. Just like a finger or toe or ear. They therefore believe that it can be disposed of without any legal or moral consequences.

On the other side are those who believe that an unborn is a person, starting from conception. Those people are the possessers of the right to life. Therefore abortion is murder.

That is the crux of the issue. Is it a human life or not? No one that I know can say with 100% certainity.

My position is that if there is any chance whatsoever that it even might be a life, then we must err on the side of defending human life particularly for those who cannot defend themselves.

One other aspect that almost all libertarians I know agree on is that the constitution gives the federal government no powers with concern to murder. It is reserved for the states. Therefore they believe that the decision should be overturned and the matter sent back to the states to be decided by each one of them. I also believe that and if it ever gets back here I will work to make it illegal again.

I hope this helps answer your question.

[Lchris]

<< What is it that really makes one a libertarian? being STUPID??? >>

Yeah, unlike mainstream Republicans who are so brilliant that they believe it when somebody like Bush tells them they have to give up their freedom in order to preserve it.