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 thought it time to set forth in my opinion what a libertarian is, in a language that is easily understood. It is my opinion that Nolan has slowly been moving to the philosophical left side of the movement, while pragmaticly remaining on the right. I think that is apparent in this article.

I give Nolan two thumbs up, for this article.

[Dane]

What is it that really makes one a libertarian?

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.

[Joe Bonforte]

What is it that really makes one a libertarian basher?

The willingness to use the same spurious claims over and over again, and the unwillingness to actually understand what one is bashing.

[Dane]

Libertarians are as tough on crime-real crime-as anyone

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.

[Roscoe]

Oops, too late.

[Frances_Marion]

Wow. What scrutiny.

[Frances_Marion]

"we should sheepishly apologize to OBL."

Not that I share Browne's views on this particular matter, but tell me where he said that, because I missed that one.

[Frances_Marion]

Keep it up, guys...maybe together you two can create a complete sentence.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Harry Browne is a frickin' idiot who hijacked the Libertarian Party, in order to better market his book.

[Dane]

Not that I share Browne's views on this particular matter, but tell me where he said that, because I missed that one

Hey Frances, why don't you read my whole reply #4.

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.

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.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Heck, let me take that a bit further. Considering that self-defense in one of the pillars of libertarianism, Browne's reaction to the WTC bombing makes it rather clear he's a LINO.

[christianswindler]

Hmmm. Replace the income tax with a tax on wealth. Interesting idea.

[Roscoe]

The self valued land tax idea is an uncredited swipe from Heinlein.

[Eagle Eye]

NAMMARINE seems opposed to individual soveriegnty, opposed to the right of self-defense, in favor of anti-possession laws, in favor of income taxes, and opposed to a sound money system.

Me? I'm anti treason, and I believe that clinton is a traitor and that the Republican Party leadership helped run interference for it during the impeachment trials and is doing it now. Therefore, those who support such actions OR FAIL TO CONDEMN THEM are just as guilty.

[gcruse]

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

As a small 'l' libertarian, I back away
from this right away.  Taxes are necessary
to fund the military for national defense.
Taxes force me to provide a small
portion of my service to society.
No taxes=no government=anarchism,
not libertarianism.

The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to
being a libertarian is their support for an honest money
 system

Baloney.  This is gold bug nonsense and has
got nothing to do with individual liberty.
I find this article of litmus tests to be
a strait jacket for the aluminum chapeau
crowd.  Count me out.  I'm not this
kind of Libertarian.

[Eagle Eye]

Not that debate tactics, or that it even makes good discussion, but if you want to throw mud because of Browne, then how about Bush running cover for clinton and refusing to seek justice for clinton's crimes? Those crimes are not Bush's to forgive and he is supposed to uphold the law.

You can make smears about what Browne says, what you think he says, and what you think he might do if in office, but what do you say about what Bush has done and is actually doing?

You spend lots of time railing on speculative policies while totally ignoring the active policies. Kind of puts your whole being into perspective, doesn't it?

[Zon]

Most people erroneously live by the 'motto' of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their life as they see fit so long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion you.

Value producers versus value destroyers. If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy. Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science is the host and bureaucracy is a parasite.

Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today. 

Grounded in inalienable rights and honest principle it is moral and legal to use force in self-defense against any person, group or government that initiates force, fraud or coercion. Because of that inescapable fact by default the initiation of force, fraud and coercion are crimes. The highest moral right is self-defense and survival.

Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.

Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.

Principle Three: No exceptions be allowed for Principle One and Two.

initiation: 1 Starting something for the first time 2 An act that sets in motion some course of events

Initiation of force: when is it permissible to punch you in the nose, steal your property or kill you?

Initiation of fraud: when is it permissible to deceive or lie to you in order to have you hand over your money or put your life in harms way?

Initiation of coercion: when is it permissible to coerce/threaten you in order to have you hand over your money or put your life in harms way?

Self-defense: When is it permissible for you to defend your life and property?

All a person need be concerned with is whether they have been a victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.

Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claimed to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All juries would be informed that they have the option of nullification. That is based on the premise of Objective Law also known as The Point Law.

[Dane]

Not that debate tactics, or that it even makes good discussion, but if you want to throw mud because of Browne, then how about Bush running cover for clinton and refusing to seek justice for clinton's crimes?

Browne deserves mud for his recent "it's America's fault" articles. And you gladly voted for Browne in Florida. You came very close to giving us a Gore Presidency.

As for your Bush smear, everybody knows that Dan Burton's committee is a sieve of information to the liberal press. Once Henry Waxman or Barney Frank got their hands on the Clinton information, it would have been faxed to the New York Times and Washington Post where it would be "laundered" to "clean up" Clinton. I am glad that Bush/Ashcroft are keeping the information out of Waxman's/Frank's hands. Sure Bush/Ashcroft may lose a minor battle, but IMHO, they are looking to win the war.