[Polonius]

Thanks for the response. While your answers to my questions make sense, please understand they were posed to point out the flaws of Rothbard's absolutist and simplistic language. As I pointed out to Free Tally, the fact that issues such as what constitutes force and what constitutes murder are not apparent when libertarianism is reduced to a one-sentence creed points to the inherent problem with using that creed to represent the whole of libertarianism. I agree with most of the aims, but the way they are represented seems to give fuel to those who paint it as unworkable absolutism. Would you disagree, and if so why?

[OWK]

As I pointed out to Free Tally, the fact that issues such as what constitutes force and what constitutes murder are not apparent when libertarianism is reduced to a one-sentence creed points to the inherent problem with using that creed to represent the whole of libertarianism. I agree with most of the aims, but the way they are represented seems to give fuel to those who paint it as unworkable absolutism. Would you disagree, and if so why?

I still think the meanings of these words are clear, but perhaps that's because I have come to understand and accept the moral validity of the philosophy. I guess my familiarity with the concepts, may make it difficult for me to recognize the possibility of ambiguous understanding of the terms on the part of others. More often than not though, it has been my experience that these terms are intentionally misinterpreted by individuals wishing to confound discussion of concepts they do not wish to consider. I don't believe this applies in your case.

But for the record, when we discuss force, we are talking about physical force... (or the threat of physical force by logical extension).

When we talk about fraud, we talk about the intentional manipulation of the truth.

Libertarian philosophy prohibits the initiation of physical force (including the threat of physical force), and also prohibits fraud.

Libertarian philosophy prohibits these things, because it recognizes the notion of rights. Rights empower individuals to act in accordance with the dictates of their own individual wills, provided their actions do not inhibit the equal ability of others to do likewise.

Libertarian philosophy further recognizes that the initiatiation of physical force, the threat of physical force, or fraud, are the only means by which individuals might be prevented from acting in accordance with the dictates of their own wills.

Hence, in order to recognize the moral legitimacy of rights, libertarian philosophy must prohibit the initiation of physical force, the threat of physical force, or fraud.

Having laid these foundational stones, we can now move on to interpretation and application of the philosophy. This is typically where most of the confusion comes in.

The most common misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy, regards the prohibition against initiated force. Some mistakenly believe that such a prohibition would leave individuals or state powerless to act in defense of rights. But such is not the case. The prohibition, is against initiated force, and not force in general. So if an individual is the victim of force initiated by another, he may morally employ force in his own defense, and/or state may morally move to employ force to restrain and punish the violator.