An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

Longshot BleedingHeadKen Ethereal tomfoo13ry bricklayer please feel free to add commentary/corrections where you see fit.While there is no "univeral" definition, still I'd like to delve into general ideas. This is a modified rehash of another thread I did a while ago, when such inaccuracies seemed to plaster the forum.

Seems to be much discussion about what denotes libertarians (the political philosophy, not the party) of late, and the end result is a lot of confusion and a lot of trolling. So in an earnest attempt to spur an honest discussion, I am beginning this thread.

So what is libertarianism? Well to understand it, you have to understand the principal that it is based upon, namely self-ownership. Basically, the first principal of ownership is that every person is full owner of their own lives. John Locke (a person often quoted in this forum out of context) said it best, I think, and it is a quote often used by libertarians to express this concept

That one is easy enough to conceive because most people (with the exception of the most radical authoritarians) believe to some extent in this libertarian concept of self-determinism. It is axiomatic.

So what of external property, or that property which is not of one’s own agency? Well, in a very real sense all rights of external property extend from this basic concept as well. All scarce goods (including one’s own body, lands, and object of value in an economy and positional good, in my estimation) are initially unowned, and a reasonable determination of ownership must be logically made. Steven Kinsella best summed it up as such:

This is the best explanation of ownership of external property I have seen.


From these concepts a second principal to determine violation said axiomatic rights is standard, and is referred to as the Non-Aggression Principal. The beginnings of this principal began to develop in Ancient Greece and were written about by Epicurus in “Principal Doctrines”. Throughout history, there have been many great philosophers touch on it, but is coagulation was attributed by Rothbard to St. Thomas Aquinas. The Mises Institute, a leading libertarian organization, has a good definition:

So much for the history lesson and definition, now let’s examine how libertarianism compares in today’s political philosophies. As left is opposite of right in social concerns, libertarianism is opposite of authoritarianism (were government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians). If you placed left-right on the x axis to represent social concerns, you can place authoritarianism-libertarianism on the y-axis. This lays out a more accurate representation of politics than the stand left vs. right. This chart from the Political Compass Organization is a very good start to understanding that politics in America is not the usual one dimensional left/right dichotomy as laid out by the two major parties and their adoring fans, but is more two dimensional.

The vast majority of people unwittingly fall north of the x axis, supporting various degrees of authoritarianism. However, the nation was founded and maintained south of the x axis, venturing north in the mid 1800’s. It could be argued that examples of the upper left hand corner is found in the ideals of Communism and the upper right in the ideals of Nazism, but that is a subjective assertion best discussed in another area of the post.

This is an excellent illustration that lends an overlay (although the y axis is inverted) to the political compass that illustrates how many political belief systems falls on it:

​

Now, just like the left/right dichotomy of authoritarianism, libertarianism has a left right dichotomy as well. This is why I think the Libertarian party has such a “big tent” organization. For all intents and purposes, there should be at least two Libertarians parties. Why not? Authoritarians have the Republicans and the Democrats.

So, from here we can open discussion- so do you think my observations are fairly accurate? I want to explore your observations as well, and develop sources and origins from which your beliefs evolved. What influenced you? What would you amend? However, be forewarned: all attempts to troll this thread or take it off topic will be reported.

 

It's as if we nursed at the same breast. Well put. Well Written. Hear here. I've read all of the greats, but I found my first kindred spirit in Jon Locke. It is easy to forget that when the idea of self-possession first entered public discourse it was laughed at as "everyone is a king thinking". It is just as easy to forget that, until 1776, almost everyone who ever lived was owned by someone else.

Self-possession (one's ownership of them self) is the axiomatic premise of libertarianism. Liberty (the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self) and private property (the product of one's industry, trade or charity) extend from self-possession. Infringements upon liberty or private property, other than the liberty and private property of others, is an infringement upon self-possession.

Defense against infringements upon self-possession, other than those which extend from the self-possession of others, is the only justification for the use of force, legal or otherwise, between equals.

Government is the legal use of force. Everything done by government is done by force of law. To the extent that government acts without nexus to the defense of individuals, and their property, from others and their property, that government is tyrannical. To the extent that a government relieves individuals from their authority over and responsibility for themselves, that government is tyrannical. Tyranny is attempting to do by force of law what cannot, or should not, be done by force at all.

Tyranny is rarely malevolent or totalitarian. Tyranny is almost always benevolent and limited. For example; Charity (to will for another as one wills for oneself) is indispensable for a civil society, but charity has a mutually voluntary nature. Absolutely nothing done by government, by force of law, is voluntary. Government cannot conduct charity. Charity cannot be conducted by force. In deed, the vast majority of what is currently done by force of law cannot, or should not, be conducted by force, including, but not limited to: education, medicine or pension.

A nation of individuals cannot retain ownership of themselves apart from tolerance with what others do, or don't do, with their ownership with themselves.

Libertarianism can be summed up as - From each according to their will and to each according to their ability.

Alas, in full disclosure, I am not primarily a liberation merely because it is the best possible condition between equals. I am a libertarian because I am left to believe that it is the best possible condition for the proliferation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The ONLY people Jesus ever took umbrage with were those who were trying to impose their best intentions for others upon them by force of law. The ONLY people Jesus ever took umbrage with were those Pharisees, those tyrants. Although obedience to God always benefits the obedient, it only glorifies God to the extent that it is one's pleasure to obey.

I know that I went on from where you started, but that's only because you had laid a foundation that was ready to build upon.

 

And although I am an atheist, your religious motivation is not at all a surprise especially considering St. Thomas Aquinas' influence upon the philosophy (Jesus was indeed a libertarian, and not an authoritarian as the two major party worshipers would abscond his principals in the name of their respect god, the state) . And even though I don't believe, I still respect them.


Thank you for your contribution.

 

I think you have to go back into history, long before Locke, to understand libertarianism. It starts with property rights. Yes. But when did property rights come about? Property rights started with the agrarian revolution. When we were hunter gatherers, nobody owned land because it was not valuable. It had no SCARCITY. As soon as the first dude planted that first seed, he had to think to himself, this plot right here...this is 'mine.' Anything that comes about from my labor on this plot, well that belongs to me and me only.

No one is going to till land when someone else could come along and just take the corn that sprouts up. That fact confirms property rights sprang up with those first planted seeds. The concept of theft had to be created along with ownership ie an infringement on property rights. Sure, we may not label the concepts of property rights until thousands of years later, but make not mistake...any planting society had property rights. Point blank period.

John Locke gets way too much credit. Give more credit to Hammurabi who punished people for stealing. You can't have theft without ownership. Therefore the concept of property rights far predates Locke.

 

I'll have to bookmark this for later, but the whole non-aggression principle thing was the biggest thing that drew me to libertarianism. Although I can see bricklayer's argument about how this can closely align to certain religious ethics, my liberatarianism is closely related to my atheism, in the sense that both are born from the concept of a burden of proof. My liberatarianism essentially boils down to, "If you want to limit someone else's liberty, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the intervention is justified."

 

Nice OP. Want to add that there are many folks who call themselves libertarian wrongfully, some on this forum.

Being pro legalization of marijuana, other substances, for example, while at the same time being extremely high tax and spend welfare statist progressive is not "libertarian" but voguish hipsterism and feigning LW iconoclasm in not wanting to be identified as a rank and file Democrat. We see this regularly with certain forum members here who claim to be "libertarian" but are actually just welfare statists who want to legalize pot or advocate some other limited tangent of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is utterly inconsistent, mutually exclusive with property absconding gigantic, high taxing, debt spending central nanny/social services government IMO. Maybe some disagree, but I find the lower left quadrant of OP's graph problematic. The backbone of classical liberalism is strong property rights in individuals and that requires highly limited, narrowly enumerated central government.

Maybe there are problems on the bottom right quadrant as well, but I rarely see them. It's usually the bottom left quadrant where you see the "statists in classical liberal clothing."

 

It being the concept of land ownership goes further considering prime hunting and gathering grounds weren't all that common dependent upon your location. You could imagine different bands entering the same location either sharing or battling each other for the use of finite resources. Though the concept of long term property ownership definitely derived when humans stopped migrating.

 

Libertarianism is as simplistic and stupid as communism.

It take no account for human nature

 

As a fiscal Conservative that is socially Liberal and places a high value on individual liberty, I have a fair amount of overlap with a lot of issues that could be considered Libertarian in nature. With that being said, there isn't really any such thing as a true viable Libertarian Party. It is little more than a loosely combined collection of ideas. There are very few viable candidates that actually run for office, and the ones that do run, don't necessarily embody the whole of what is reported to be Libertarian. I agree that in theory there should be a right and left Libertarianism, because there are conflicting views on governance that would make the right and left Libertarians not truly under the same tent when it actually comes to the ballot box. There are literally far left people that call themselves Libertarian, and far right. Those two factions are not anywhere close to being able to reconcile their differences under one tent.

As it stands now, the title of Libertarian is little more than a theoretical construct. There are not any viable candidates, and if there were, there isn't a viable way for them to actually gain any type of consensus that would be necessary to be able to govern effectively if they did come into power. We can sit here and muse that it would be great if a 3rd party were able to break the 2 party stranglehold that exists, but that is not realistic at any point even remotely in the foreseeable future. As such, discussing the nuances of "Libertarianism" is little more than an academic exercise. That academic exercise is mildly interesting, but lets not fool ourselves into believing this exercise is a serious policy discussion.

 

And that is the reason no successful country on earth is primarily libertarian.

 

Honest and accurate eh? Okay, then answer me this libertarians.. in a libertarian world, what stops non-libertarian groups from forming and winning over libertarians? In other words, how can a libertarian system sustain itself? How can it protect itself?

 

It is simplistic. You own your means and it applies the Golden Rule of "Do onto others as you would have done to you". Though calling it stupid because it takes no account of human nature isn't the truth at all. The Non-aggression principle takes human nature into account in all areas.

 

Doesn't that question apply to EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE political or social system you can think of?

 

That is suppossed to happen in democracies. If it happens in a libertarian society it is no longer libertarian.

 

What's your idea of a "non-libertarian" group? Is it Mad Max road gangs or a peaceful commune?
Sustain itself by having humans move forward in technology or making sure food is on the table?
Protect itself from those who violate within or outside of a Libertarian group?

 

Sure, but then the answer is simply "we will use force to stop them". Libertarianism is based around rejecting that. So what is their answer? Magic?

Any group, but i had aggressive and statist groups in mind, groups which would expand and basically conquer all libertarians. Think nazis. I mean sustain and protecr the libertarian system so that it wont get replaced by some statist system.

 

Are you under the basis that Libertarians cannot/will not cooperate with each other?

 

People will not cooperate with each other without someone maintaining order thru force.

 

Yes I am. Are you saying all libertarians would form coalitions to deal with any threat? Are things like coordination problems, free rider problem, news to you? A threat from e.g. a nazi group would mean libertarians would have to form some kind of military. But without force, how can they sustain it? The benefit (protection) is non exclusive, but the cost (money to fund military) is personal. Everyone has the incentive to let everyone else pay because they would still be protected. This is the free rider problem. Statist dont have that problem because they can just force everyone to contribute. How does libertarians solve it?

 

And of course people are known to always be 'non-aggressive".

Just like they don't need the profit incentive as communists claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm "under the basis" that people don't.

 

I guess that brand of Libertarianism would be that of Anarchism. Every piece of land is it's own state.

Though in my mind a Libertarian society would include a Public Good which is the military and police force in order to enforce contracts and the Non-aggression principle. Though that public good like you suggested would involve force to pay for such measures. That is true that force would be necessary in those situations. Now this leads into whether a person committed to the cause of such a public good. If they didn't and/or don't wish to be part of it do they get locked up and/or don't share in the benefit? That's a question that society would ask themselves. Though the idea that Anarchism could work doesn't sound at all right in my mind. If you go too far on each spectrum there are either power vacuums or rebellions. I guess I'm no true Libertarian?

 

You seem to make the common error of lumping all forms of libertarianism into one pile. However, like authoritarianism this simply can not be done.


Many libertarians believe in a minimal vehicle designed solely to protect the rights of the governed and it is maintained via an explicit voluntererist mechanism. This is implemented via a domestic only military, a minimal police force and a court system to do nothing more than arbitrate disputes between the governed. This approach is usually called minarchism.



For your reference, here is some reading to give you insight to the various approaches. Thds way, you will no longer make this mistake. Also, I would recommend Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

 

Its not a mistake. The question is aimed at anarchist libertarians.

Edit: i must also add that anyone who genuinely believes in the non aggression principle is an anarchist. Those who follow the non anarchist kinds of libertarianism should stop pretending the follow NAP. You cant support a common military and NAP at the same time.

 

The above is -not- the case. Having a relatively strong, even aggressive military, federal and state boundaries, firm treaties with other countries is not at all mutually exclusive with classical liberalism, but a matter of degree. You have a bad habit of committing what I call the "anarchy fallacy" in your posts on classical liberalism. Small, weak central government with strict, enumerated powers is -not- "no government."

FACT: The US was mostly "libertarian" during its first 150 years of existence, yet conducted wars and exercised other central power. The slide into illicit statism as opposed to classical liberal Constitutional Republicanism took some time. Claims by the pink union label Complex that "libertarian government is a pipe dream" are factually, historically incorrect. The technological advances that fueled our current, continuing tech boom took place in a relatively libertarian US.

 

For libertarians who follow the NAP it is the case. Yes, libertarianism is a stupidly broad term but thats not my problem. My question was to the anarchist part of libertarianism