Six Myths About Libertarianism

lewrockwell.com ^ | Jan. 15, 2002 | by Murray N. Rothbard

[BillofRights]

I think you are right! I consider myself to be a conservative-libertarian, but because the word "libertaraian" has such a negative connotation for so many un-informed or ill-informed people, I have started calling myself a "Constitutionalist" -- but independent with regard to political affiliation.

Also, I think that for anyone to understand what libertarians are about, he/she would have to really understand the concept of "compelled performance" and all of its ramifications. If the King or the Government (makes no difference) can compel an individual, who has not violated the rights (not privileges) of another, to perform any act against his will, then freedom does not exist. The "compelled person" is a slave!

[Liberal Classic]

Two can play at this game. Because I say it is! Ha! :)

[Always Right]

No they don't. Its only coercion(and a true libertarian could only see it to be) if public money is bein used to "support" the views.

Exactly my point. Libertarians are hell bent against any use of public propery if the views are religious, but don't make any issue out of it if public dollar support non-religious views. The different treatment is bigotry in my book. With the size of government as it is, that effectly surpresses the religious viewpoint in many forums.

[Texaggie79]

Deterioration can mean many things. Going from a nice neighborhood to a trashpit, is one. Crime does follow poverty so therefore hard drug use will attract crime. Or do you think that crackheads are great employees?

Fact is, my town, your town, anyone's town will be worse off, in every way, by legalizing such things. If Libertarians realize that there is evil in men, they must realize that it is these very things that breed that evil.

However, if you should be so unlucky to be in a state that wished to legalize these things, the fed should have no power to stop them. These are state, county, city, and community matters.

[mamaduck]

small "l" bump

Both dems and repubs want to rule everyone's life, just in different ways. I agree

I am not sure what you mean by coercion: from my "born and bred in the briar patch" experience, "coercion" means selfrighteous, judgemental, relentless, "don't darken our doorway unless you agree" harrassment, "for our own good"

[Always Right]

Only when Christians and others, but especially fundie christians, employ the Bible as justification for unjust law, i.e., sodomy laws.

I have been called a "bible thumper" or worse by Libertarians on this forum but I never quote scriptures or Biblical figures in my posts. I just expect that religious views get the same freedom of expression as other views.

[Texaggie79]

It cannot be theft, because you have NEVER owned all the rights to your property. Not if you live in the U.S. How can it be theft, if you never owned it in the first place.

When you purchased your property, you, in essence, signed a contract to obey all town, state, and federal laws. For this Libertarian utopia you wish, you would have to start a new country. Then we can send all our degenerates over there. :-)

[freeeee]

but don't make any issue out of it if public dollar support non-religious views.

You couldn't be more mistaken about that.

With the size of government as it is, that effectly surpresses the religious viewpoint in many forums.

Are you honestly saying that your freedom of speech would be compromised if you couldn't use force to compel a forum, and that this view is justified because others do so?

[WindMinstrel]

Give me the statistics and proof. Just saying that it is a threat is no good. I want the proof that the amount of threat posed by a gun pointed in my direction is a threat punishable by law. I want to know the exact distance one must be from me with the gun (surely a gun pointed at me from 50 miles away is not enough of a threat), I want to know the exact caliber of weapon. Tell me. Show me the legal documents supporting such claim.

Why are you presenting this idiocy as arguement? You know you're being deliberately obstructive. Why not bring some honesty into the discussion, instead of your verbal smokescreens

[E Rocc]

I agree with most of the theory behind libertarianism. It is just that I disagree with how the LP has defined certain activities. Doing, or selling hard drugs ANYWHERE is a violation of you neighbors rights. Selling your body is a violation of your neighbor's rights. Abortion is a violation of the child's rights. The sale fictitious child porn literature is a violation of your neighbors rights. I do not hold the position that these things should be outlawed because I want to force people to be moral as most Libertarians falsely accuse us of. It is a protection of citizens rights.

It's hard to see how anyone can agree with any libertarian philosophy (except perhaps on an expedient basis) and forward these arguments. They are quintessential "communitarianism", the idea that the "community" (a polite word for government) should take precedence over the rights and perogatives of the individual.

Philosophically, communitarianism is the antithesis of libertarianism. Practically, it leads to Sweden at best and Stalin at worst.

-Eric

[kidd]

I fear a deterioration in my community therefore, ultimately, a threat to mine and my family's well being.

Ultimately, Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a form of government. Start talking about the realities of politics and its adherents’ eyes glaze over. Suggest compromise and watch them go ballistic. It’s almost a religious thing.

Excellent. Take the one Republican leader who really rubs libertarians the wrong way: Rudy Giuliani. He concentrated on non-violent crimes such as vagrancy, prostitution, pan-handling, etc. The result? A dramatic drop in violent crime, a populace that feels more secure, one the feels free to walk the streets, tourists that feel free to tour NYC, cabbies that feel free to drive to more neighborhoods, citizens who feel free to go to Central Park without harassment. Real freedom for the majority as a result of common sense, not imaginary freedom for a select few deviants as a result of a philosophy.

[Texaggie79]

How is selling your body a violation of your neighbor's rights?

The only way it would not be a violation would be if you lived in a state whose majority wished to legalize prostitution. Otherwise, you are subjecting your neighbor to the ills of prostitution in the community.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

All your bodies ar....oh never mind

[Liberal Classic]

Libertarians are hell bent against any use of public propery if the views are religious, but don't make any issue out of it if public dollar support non-religious views.

I'm not sure where you're getting these impression. It's the left-wing types that think that the old nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is a political football, while at the same time promoting the latest education fad through programs in public schools.

Libertarians are generally strict on public dollar spending across the board.

[Dead Corpse]

Not so. I've known, and I also advocate, that IF public property is to be used for religious displays... that they should not EXCLUDE other beliefs. If you want to put up a Nativity scene, then you can't stop the Jews from putting up a torah (or whatever) next to it. Or the Pagans from putting a Yule Log. Ect...

For Christians, it's all well and good to have the Ten Commandments posted in a courtroom, now ask them how they'd feel about having the Wiccan Rede and the Talmud posted next to them.

Essentially, the Government should have NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever. If the People want to put up a religious display, then no one should be able to tell them not to. Don't confuse this with the liberal position that all religion should be excised from public life.

[Always Right]

Only government sponsored speech.

Government sponsored speech should not be biased against religion either. Currently only an atheist is free to express his beliefs at a high school graduation ceremony. A religious person is censored.

[Texaggie79]

Then you see that there cannot be a tangible solution to when exactly something becomes too much of a threat....

My solution is for each community (i.e. state, city) decide for themselves, instead of FORCING a blanket authoritarian or LIBERTARIAN view upon them.

[x]

No stereotype ever reflects the whole truth. But there is an element or grain of truth in every stereotype. Rothbard approaches the matter rationally and deductively, beginning with certain presuppositions or axioms and proceding logically from there. Those who created his "myths" acted empirically and inductively, starting with actual libertarians they knew and forming rough generalizations based on them. Neither method is illegitimate, and neither will express the whole truth about libertarianism or anything else. It's revelatory though, that so much of Rockwellism is deductive and values the general principles from which one can procede much more than the mass of specific, often contradictory data from which one forms such generalizations. One clears away all doubts and contradictory facts in one's own mind, without having to face stubborn facts in the world.

Rothbard's career encompassed an interesting span of time. When he was young, people actually believed in socialism and thought it would make people better. By the time Murray Rothbard died, very few people thought that way. Libertarianism is, in spite of the ideological dogmatism, a much more realistic way of looking at the world and humanity. Will it actually make people better, as Rothbard implies? Some would say yes, but it looks like that's another overly rationalized deduction from general principles. It may or may not fit humanity's character more than other political theories, but those who think it will actually make people "better," more foresighted and more responsible, labor under the same rationalist delusion the socialists of Rothbard's younger years did. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the idea that socialism would make people more moral, more social and more concerned seemed as "rational" or "logical" or "uncontestable" to the socialists of the thirties as does the idea that doing away with social programs will make people responsible and ethical does to libertarians today. The kernel of perversity or irrationality in human nature, or the desire to cut corners, proved such hopes wrong, and may do so again. Certainly, the legendary improvidence and ill-fortunes of the Victorian working classes, suggest that things may not work out as cleanly as Rothbard would wish.

[freeeee]

It cannot be theft, because you have NEVER owned all the rights to your property.

Hmmm... Do you know what is the word for a system that combines limited property rights with directives for the use of such from the State?

When you purchased your property, you, in essence, signed a contract to obey all town, state, and federal laws.

Not that I agree with you on that point, but what happens in your opinion if they pass a law after you already own your property?

[steve50]

Your wrong. Libertarians only support federal spending on the items authorized by the Constitution, and would require Amendment to spend in unauthorized areas. So the spending on these problems that bother you would never have been funded to start with.