Daily Archives: June 28, 2017

This page is about free-market individualism. Some people (especially in Europe and Latin America) use the word libertarianism to refer to "libertarian socialism" (see anarchism)

Libertarianism is an idea in ethics and politics. The word comes from the word "liberty". Simply put, libertarians believe that people should be able to do whatever they desire as long as their actions do not harm others. As a result, Libertarians want to limit the government's power so people can have as much freedom as possible.

Libertarianism grew out of liberalism as a movement in the 1800s. Many of the beliefs of libertarianism are similar to the beliefs in classical liberalism. It also has roots in anarchism and the Austrian School of economics.

Like other people, libertarians oppose slavery, rape, theft, murder, and all other examples of initiated violence.

Libertarians believe that no person can justly own or control the body of another person, what they call "self-ownership" or "individual sovereignty." In simple words, every person has a right to control her or his own body.

In the 19th century, United States libertarians like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lysander Spooner were all abolitionists. Abolitionists were people who wanted to end slavery right away.

Garrison based his opposition to slavery on the idea of self-ownership. Since you have a natural right to control your own body, no one else has any right to steal that control from you. Garrison and Douglass both called slave masters "man stealers."

If you have a right to control your own body, then no one has a right to start violence (or force) against you.

Some libertarians believe that all violence is unjust. These libertarians are often called "anarcho-pacifists". Robert LeFevre was a libertarian who rejected all violence. However, most libertarians believe that there are some ways violence can be justified.

One thing that justifies violence is self defense. If someone is violent towards you, you have a right to defend yourself with equal force.

The libertarian Murray N. Rothbard said that it would be wrong to kill someone for stealing a pack of gum. If you steal gum, this is an act of violence against the property owner. The owner has a right to use defensive violence to get the gum back, but killing the thief goes too far. That is too much force because it is not equal to the force used by the thief. Punishment must be equal to the crime. A student and colleague of his, Walter Block, said that a punishment shouldn't be equal to the crime, but rather enough to make up for the damage the crime caused plus how much it cost to catch the criminal.

Some libertarians believe that it is your moral duty to defend yourself and your property if you can. This belief is usually held by Objectivists. These people believe that pacifism is immoral. Most libertarians reject this view.

All libertarians believe that it is wrong to start violence against any person or against what he or she owns. They call this the "non-aggression principle."

Ownership is the right to control something. Property is the thing that you control.

Libertarians believe that property rights come from self-ownership. This means that because you have a right to control your own body, you also have a right to control what you make with it.

The English philosopher John Locke said that a person comes to own something by using it. So, if you turn an area that no-one else owns into a farm and use it, that area becomes your property. This is called the "homestead principle."

Libertarians also say that you can become a legitimate owner by receiving something as a gift or by trading it with someone for something they own. You do not become a legitimate owner by stealing. You also do not become a legitimate owner by simply saying you own something. If you have not "homesteaded" the thing or received it through trade or gift, you do not own it.

Libertarians are opposed to states (or governments) creating any "laws" that tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The only legitimate laws are laws that say a person may not start violence against other people or their legitimate property. All "laws" stopping people from doing nonviolent things should be repealed, according to libertarians. (These "laws" are usually called "victimless crimes" because there is no victim if there is no theft.)

In most countries, the state (or government) takes tax money from the people. All libertarians support cutting taxes back, and some libertarians believe the state should not take tax money at all. Libertarians think people can take care of the poor without the government. They believe that people should pay for the things that they want to use, but not have to pay for other things that they do not want. Tax evasion (refusal to pay taxes to the state) is a victimless crime. Libertarians would prefer to see taxation replaced with lotteries, user fees, and endowments.

Libertarians think everyone should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for her/his own body. Libertarians think if people want to drive cars without wearing seat belts, it is their own choice. They should not be forcibly stopped from doing that, not even by the state. If a person wants to donate all of her/his money to a charity, or waste it all gambling, that is also something she/he should decide for herself/himself. No one should be forcibly stopped from doing that, not even by the state. Libertarians even say that if adults want to use harmful drugs, they should be allowed to do that, even if it spoils their lives. It is the drug user's own choice because it is the drug user's own body. As long as the drug user does not start using violence against other people or their legitimate property, no one should use violence against the drug user or the drug user's legitimate property, not even the government.

Many libertarians also believe that families and friends should look after people so that they will not use drugs, drive without seat belts, or do other things that are dangerous for them. But no one can force others to do things that they do not want to do, or to stop them from doing nonviolent things that they want to do.

There are two basic types of libertarians. All libertarians fall into one of these two broad types.

Minarchists are libertarians who believe that society should have a state with very limited power. They typically believe that the only things the state should have are police and judges to make sure that people obey the laws. Some also believe in having a military to make sure that no one attacks the country. Some minarchists believe in having a small amount of taxation.

Two famous minarchist libertarians are Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand. Nozick believed that the only legitimate thing a state can do is have a police force. He called his legitimate state a "night-watchman state." Rand believed that the state should have a police force and a court system.

Libertarian anarchists usually call themselves anarcho-capitalists, free-market anarchists, individualist anarchists, or just anarchists.

Libertarian anarchists do not believe the state is needed. They believe that people can organise their own lives and businesses. They want to replace the state with voluntary organisations, including charities, private companies, voluntary unions, and mutual aid societies. They also want to end all forced taxation.

They say that state police can be replaced with "DROs" (Dispute Resolution Organisations) or "private protection agencies." They also say that state judges can be replaced with "private arbitration."

The most famous libertarian anarchist was Murray N. Rothbard. Others include Lysander Spooner, Benjamin R. Tucker, and Linda & Morris Tannehill.

Most libertarians fall under one of the two types of libertarians listed above. But there are other types, too.

Excerpt from:
Libertarianism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...

Its easy for an individual that has been cringeworthy himself on many occasions even on a national stage (also, it seems you may be lacking some self-awareness with that egotistical prick comment, Mr. Ive Read 100 Books On This Ideology) to separate himself from any of the blame when it comes to how cringeworthy some libertarians are.

Aside from that, Charles Peralos assertion that libertarians are [] the cringe lords of Facebook stood out to me as a poor generalization. For example, in a world where regressive leftists showcase their poor understanding of economics, their abysmal critical thinking skills, and their hatred of the freedom of speech on social media (ironic, right?), its simply absurd to say that libertarians are the worst. All sides of the political spectrum have their cringeworthy members; libertarians arent unique in that regard.

In my opinion, Charless points were undoubtedly sloppy and this is not just because his articles are typically a poor read, both structurally and contextually. His article proves that he simply had an ax to grind, and instead of coming up with 10 compelling reasons not to make your friends libertarian, he just compiled a list of things he doesnt like about some libertarians.

So, heres a different list of 10 ways not to make your friends libertarian.

In America, liberals may have stolen the term for our political ideology, but that doesnt mean we are what they are; this is why I refer to leftists as such rather than liberals, and also because most leftists arent liberal they dont believe in things like the freedom of speech like they used to.

I dont want to focus too much on Charles and look like I myself have an ax to grind, since this isnt the time or place, but his content proves exactly my point on this particular issue.

Wanting to save social security, attack possible opportunities for secession, partner with a radical and violent leftist group like Black Lives Matter, support government paying off student loan debt rather than simply repudiating said debt, and advocate for universal healthcare are all ideas that swing left to varying degrees.

Moving away from the author at hand, there are plenty of other people that have done the same, from Gary Johnsons I agree with Bernie 73% of the time comments, to other liberty advocates pushing leftist ideals.

Lets stop making libertarianism about leftism. Theyre not compatible. As long as universal healthcare, universal basic income, and maintaining social security and the rest of the welfare state are on the table, libertarianism loses.

Part of the problem I have with the liberty movement these days is that many people have abandoned principle over party in favor of party over principle.

Sure, political strategy often simply revolves around winning. But attacking the wrong people is the worst idea for an up-and-coming party. I see libertarians within the Libertarian Party attacking Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie simply for being Republicans, without realizing that most of us would vote for these people if they were on our ticket in a heartbeat.

These people may be Republicans, but theyre an ally to liberty and libertarianism. Lets not forget that the Libertarian Party isnt the only mechanism for advancing liberty.

I could write an entire book revolved around the idea that libertarians shouldnt hate veterans just because they also hate that the government funds the military through taxation.

Whether or not you think our country should have such an expansive nanny state as it does, or whether you think the country should exist at all, military people havent done anything to you.

Attacking these people, who likely will be the easiest to pitch libertarianism, is a poor choice to make. These people have seen the disastrous effects of interventionist foreign policy, these people have seen why an expansive military doesnt need to exist.

These people also are just people, and theyre not baby killers. Theyre ordinary people, and most of them are reservists who never see combat deployment. Generalizing all the people who have served our country as killers, savages, and awful humans who want to steal your tax money to fund failed wars is not only an awfully poor and incorrect generalization, but also not a way to expand the libertarian base.

Anarcho-capitalists are the purists of the libertarian ideology. This one should go without saying: attacking the most devoted liberty minds doesnt do libertarianism any good. Theyre an important part of the ideology, and whether or not you agree with them, they have a lot of good things to say, if youll just listen.

If youre worried about the public image of libertarianism, and believe that people will generalize libertarianism as anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, then simply make it your mission to explain how thats not the case when youre pitching someone.

Life, liberty, and property; its clich, I know.

But that, in short, is libertarianism. The right to life, absolute liberty, and property, so long as you dont harm anyone else. The Johnson campaign was guilty of this, as well as many other libertarians. Property rights are integral to what libertarianism is as an ideology; if we abandon this integral plank, our ideology will fail.

We cant make our friends into libertarians if we dont have a philosophy. We also cant do it if we dont have a solid philosophy to pitch. Property rights are important, lets not forget that.

The abortion debate has always been murky when it comes to libertarianism, with both sides debating which provides more liberty. I tend to fall on the pro-life side, except when rape results in pregnancy since there was no consent and it is essentially self-defense by the mother. I stand firm that life begins at the first heartbeat, which is around six weeks. The debate, in my opinion, should be whether life begins at conception or not. I havent personally heard an argument that convinced me life begins at conception.

Whether we even need to have this debate anymore has recently been taken into question, but since we will for the foreseeable future, it makes its way onto this list.

Pro-life libertarians see the unborn life as exactly what it is a life. They argue that the mother and father had consensual sexual intercourse whilst understanding the possible consequences, and that the termination of said pregnancy is murder because it is the taking of a life; just because the life resides in a womans womb doesnt make it her property, rather she consented to the possibility of pregnancy by taking an action thats meant to begin a pregnancy.

Whether or not you agree with this, pro-life libertarians make good points. Not only can they attract a sizable right-wing electorate that tends to agree with libertarians otherwise, but these pro-life libertarians themselves are key to our cause.

Disagreements on abortion arent worth dividing the house over.

Some people cant get out and be real-world activists for liberty, and thats understandable they work full-time jobs that fill their days, have children, and so on. Not everyone can dedicate time out of their lives to get out and fight for liberty.

I had to turn down the chance to fly across the country and participate in a grassroots activism campaign this summer because I have to work my day job in order to save enough money before I transfer to an out-of-state college in the fall. I dedicate my time to being the news editor here at Being Libertarian, writing opinion pieces when I can, and using social media to spread the ideology. Once I have the ability to be a real-world activist, I will, but we shouldnt punish people who cant get out and be activists. Theyre doing what they can just because its not the medium you prefer doesnt make it bad or ineffective.

Even if someone has the time but doesnt want to be a real-world activist doesnt mean theyre not contributing by posting to social media. If you couldnt tell, social media is alive and well, and its an apt place to be a liberty advocate.

The only way to achieve everything in one fell swoop whether it be minarchism or anarcho-capitalism is to have some sort of civil war or revolutionary war. Thats a pretty drastic situation, and not one thats popular, for obvious reasons.

Anything other than that takes time. Even secession takes time; at least all 50 states would have to secede, and theres absolutely no way that happens all in one shot. Secessionism is one of the quickest ways to get what we want, assuming secession doesnt result in another powerful government, with the only change being territorial size.

Besides those two, we have to realize that as much as we may want it to not everything is going to happen all at once. We cant get everything we want right away, so we should push for every victory we can achieve.

By participating and contributing to a gradual move towards libertarian ideals, we allow our ideas to have exposure on a grander stage.

Its a win-win scenario we shrink government gradually (while not shutting ourselves off to other options to accelerate said shrinkage), and we give libertarianism more exposure.

To be honest, I think its pretty ridiculous that I have to even make this point.

Antifa are not anti-fascist, they are fascist. They are against free-speech and the freedom of association, and use violence to suppress speech and ideas. Libertarians, especially those within the party, have supported or sympathized with these people. Whether its to spite President Trump, or its based on pure ignorance, libertarians that side with Antifa are siding against everything they believe in.

Just because these people are anarchists (actually, theyre anarcho-communists), doesnt mean we should side with them. If anything, thats just going to reinforce the publics growing notion that these people are libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, which is absolutely not the case.

This final, most important point takes a direct shot at Charless point that we shouldnt remind people that taxation is theft, or discuss the non-aggression principle (NAP).

These are both key principles, like property rights, that make libertarianism what it is.

Sure, if all you ever say is taxation is theft, youre going to push people to click that ever-so-enticing unfollow button. However, we shouldnt just throw these slogans to the curb.

Make America Great Again and America First were key slogans that captured the attention of an otherwise silent and forgotten demographic. They were clich on the surface, and were great for a bumper sticker. But everyone knew what these things meant: they were essentially shorthand for some of the policies Trump advocated for. If we want to pitch our ideas to people, we can do the same with our slogans. As long as we dont say taxation is theft without expanding upon why its an issue and why we should fix it, these are things we can utilize to expand the libertarian base.

We dont advocate libertarianism for fun, we advocate it because we want to free ourselves from coercion, and seek the most amount of liberty attainable. Remember, we can win this fight. Liberty can win, and it will, as long as we dont forget our mission.

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

Read more:
Response to 10 Ways Not to Make Your Friends Libertarian - Being Libertarian