This is a response to Universal Mind's request for a new topic to discuss what 'Libertarianism is'.
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.
