What Libertarianism Is

[lawsome]

This is a response to Universal Mind's request for a new topic to discuss what 'Libertarianism is'. Libertarianism is not all or nothing. There is a spectrum of it. You don't have to be libertarian on 100% of all issues to be libertarian. And again, I am not "just another" "warmonger". I explained that. You dodged. Hilter wanted to kill every black person and Jew in the world. If the Allied Powers had not intervened, he would have killed every black person in Africa and every Jew in Europe. I think there is a confusion as to what Libertarianism is. You seem to think it is a political party? Am I wrong? If so, you should check out the history of 'Libertarianism'. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html http://mises.org/story/3660 http://mises.org/story/1895 Murray N. Rothbard's book, "For a New Liberty" is a great example. Are three good resources on Libertarianism. "You don't have to be libertarian on 100% of all issues to be libertarian." This is wrong, actually. A Libertarian is set apart from all other philosophies on 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' by the mere fact that, a true Libertarian is someone who is consistent in every aspect of it's principles. But, if you don't want to go to those links above, or read that book, I will tell you what it means to me, from researching this very topic, myself. Libertarianism is a theory concerned with the justified use of aggression or violence, with its foundation based on property rights and self-ownership. Thus, the essence of libertarianism is Non-Aggression (or Zero Aggression). All that Non-Aggression states is, that you do not have the right to initiate of the use of violence, for any reason whatever, against other human beings or their property. That thee only proper way to use violence is in self-defense, and only against those who initiate its use AGAINST YOU. What sets the libertarian apart from others is that it never violates the Non-Aggression, ever. A libertarian is someone who should always be consistent with this. So, for example, let's say that there's a room of men and women,-- oh, say there's 100 of them,-- and each one of them wants access to my vehicle (i.e., my Millennium Falcon, yo!), but I deny them by saying "no", so then they decide to hold an election on whether or not to take my vehicle, and say 51 of them vote yes and 49 vote no. What you have is a majority rule that just voted to take away my vehicle (MY property!) and use it for themselves, without my consent. (We can see real life examples of this in California, where a majority rule voted away the rights for homosexuals to legally marry. I guess being homosexual is criminal and brings physical and economical harm to others, though, right? *sarcasm*) Let's say that, "Hey, that's a nice hat." and the only way to go about getting this hat is to offer you money, time, or services. You could say, "I will give you 5$ for it?" and if the person says no, then you could say, "Well, what about 10$? No? Then 20$?" or whatever amount. But if the person continues to say no, then that's that. Forcefully removing the hat and running away would be the improper way to go about this. Of course, there are always property rights. Have you aggressed against this person by taking the hat? Not necessarily, if you know this hat to be your hat. That you knew this person took it from you the other day, and now here this person is standing before you wearing the hat, thus you are merely taking back what was rightfully yours to begin with. Self-Ownership goes in hand with Non-Aggression and Property Rights. This simply states that every man and woman has absolute propery rights over his or her own body. In effect, this means that no one individual or group may aggress against another's person by telling them what they may or may not do. For example, take abortion rights: if a woman owns her body, and thus, her own womb, then she, alone, has a complete and sole right to determine whether to have a child or not; what can reside in it is her choice. Whether or not you agree that it is murdering a human being or ejecting a parasite, is irrelevant. This is an issue taking place at the individual, the woman, not on some third party. Or another example being, marijuana: if it is your body, and you have the sole ownership of said body, then you have every right to put whatever you want into your body. Whether that is alcohol, nicotine, or marijuana. No one except YOU are harmed by this; not the state, not your mother, nobody. If you commit a crime under the influence, then YOU are responsible, not the drug. Using this argument is merely a scapegoat; there is no excuse for initiating harm against others. When you begin to form laws that deem to tell a man or woman that s/he may do this, may not do that, in regards to their own body, you're only sending us back into the age of slavery.

[lawsome]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html and http://mises.org/story/2099 Are good resourches for "Left" and "Right", as well.

[lawsome]

A good quote from Murray N. Rothbard: 'Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means.... Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.'

[Hercuflea]

True. There is no political spectrum in reality, only in socialist fantasy worlds. In reality there is only one choice: Freedom, or the State.

[Universal Mind]

I think there is a confusion as to what Libertarianism is. You seem to think it is a political party? Am I wrong? If so, you should check out the history of 'Libertarianism'. I said I am libertarian on everything except foreign policy but am not an official party member because of that important exception. That is why I use a lower case "l" when describing myself. I am libertarian on domestic issues and conservative on foreign policy issues. Some people are more libertarian than others. Some people are more non-violent than others, some people are more anti-American than others, and some people are more against government intervention than others. There is a spectrum with all such things. Harry Browne, who was the party's presidential candiate in 1996 and 2000, wrote an article about how he is surprised at how many Libertarians (He even used the capital "L".) support the war in Iraq. He didn't dismiss us from the label, and he is the #1 face and voice of the party. I still use a lower case "l" when describing myself because I think foreign policy is so important that I am very weary about the party's candidates holding federal office. I am gung-ho about it on the state and city levels, however. In local politics, I am full blown libertarian. http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/...iansAndWar.htm True. There is no political spectrum in reality, only in socialist fantasy worlds. In reality there is only one choice: Freedom, or the State. Most people are not all or nothing, so there is a spectrum. Freedom here, state there. It is the usual outlook.

[Absolute]

Anyone can put themselves or call someone else a particular category whether it's under a political spectrum or social spectrum. There are democrats and there are republicans as the "primary" dual party system, with the exception of the independents. However, within these two party groups are individuals who support ideals that may not even specifically pertain to their chosen political ideological categorization. For me, I essentially am classified as a centrist, a social libertarian, or a non-labeled bipartisan (according to political spectrum tests I've taken). Personally, I do not categorize myself because you then get involved with dabbles like this one. It's just like when a Christian is chewing another Christian out while saying "You're not a Christian!" when there are so many different types of Christian theological views to begin with. Technically, yes, Universal Mind is classified as a libertarian, or maybe he's simply classified as a social libertarian. But just because he doesn't support an aspect of a political policy doesn't mean he's not one.

[oniman7]

I share a lot of libertarian beliefs. However, I don't consider myself to belong to any party. I do things based on individual beliefs, not because I align myself with a party, and if your idea of libertarianism is correct, then I'm not libertarian because I'm not 100% consistent with it.

[Laughing Man]

I share a lot of libertarian beliefs. However, I don't consider myself to belong to any party. I do things based on individual beliefs, not because I align myself with a party, and if your idea of libertarianism is correct, then I'm not libertarian because I'm not 100% consistent with it. Well what would you consider yourself? Do you think that the Non-Aggression Principle is a good basic tenet? How do you feel about private property rights?