Category Archives: Libertarianism

Anarchism and Libertarianism

By: LuckyShitZu

See the rest here:
Anarchism and Libertarianism - Video

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarians see the individual as the basic, most essential element of society. The word roughly means believer in liberty. Libertarians believe that each individual owns his or her own life and property and has the right to make his own choices about how to live his life as long as he respects the rights of others to do the same.

Liberty is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of free markets, civil liberties and self-ownership.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense) and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Click here to view some definitions of libertarianism.

Libertarians are not left or right or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that on every issue you have the right to decide for yourself whats best for you and to act on that belief, so long as you simply respect the right of other people to do the same.

How does this compare with the left and right? Todays liberals tend to value personal liberty, but want significant government control of the economy. Todays conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but want to use the government to uphold traditional values. Libertarians, in contrast, support both personal and economic liberty.

Libertarianism is the only political movement that consistently advocates a high degree of both personal and economic liberty.

Modern libertarianism has multiple roots, but perhaps the most important one is the minimal-government republicanism of Americas founding revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The core ideals of libertarianism that all men are created equal and are endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and in the limited government established in the Constitution.

Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are among the most famous of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberals that developed theories on the invisible hand of free markets. More recently, libertarian philosophy has been explored and defined through Ayn Rands ethical egoism and the Austrian School of free-market economics.

See the original post:
Libertarianism - Frequently Asked Questions - The Advocates ...

From New World Encyclopedia

In English-speaking countries, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they respect the liberty of others.

Libertarianism can also be an ethical theory or stance that holds that the besti.e., best ethically speaking, or what "ought to" or "should" exist or be upheldpolitical, social, economic, and/or governmental system is the one that governs least, that provides for the greatest individual liberty, initiative, entrepreneurship, etc. Libertarian theory advocates minimizing social and governmental power, action, control, and regulation, and maximizing individual liberty and freedom. Libertarians are suspicious of the ability of government and bureaucrats to make good, wise, and informed ethical, social, or economic choices for people. Libertarians believe, instead, that people are the best judges and masters of their own self-interest, and that they make the best choices when they choose freely for themselves.

Libertarianism can be contrasted with socialismthe two are more or less opposite in their political, social, and ethical stances.

Some libertarians (as explained below) are anarchists. But it is important not to assume that libertarianism implies or is synonymous with anarchism because most libertarians do believe in and accept some minimal government and governmental powera view sometimes called the "night-watchman theory of the state."

There are broadly two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists.[1] Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their propertywith "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someonewho has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. This form of libertarianism is associated with Objectivists, as well as with individualist anarchists who see this prohibition as requiring opposition to the state to be consistent.

Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but support those actions that they believe will result in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society. Though they will allow some initiation of force by the state if they believe it necessary to bring about good consequences for society, they believe that allowing a very large scope of individual liberty is the most productive way toward this end. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.

Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud, or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe "forcing" someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription, because they oppose slavery and involuntary servitude.

Critics of libertarianism may point to its unrealistic view of human nature. Since human beings are fallen and prone to selfish behaviors, lacking in self-control and greedy to promote themselves at the expense of others, a condition of unfettered liberty will necessarily result in inequality and oppression of the many by a privileged few who are stronger and more ruthless. The state, in this view, has a positive role to regulate selfish and immoral behavior and to provide redress to those oppressed by economic or social circumstances. This is the essence of Jean-Jacque Rousseau's social contract, which founds the sovereign role of government on an implicit contract in which citizens surrender a measure of individual liberty for a measure of protection and greater social equality. On the other hand, elements of libertarian policy can succeed if non-governmental organizations in a society were to deliver widespread moral instruction to encourage citizens to practice self-control and embody divinity within themselves, support healthy families in which such virtues are most readily cultivated, and encourage voluntary charity to care for the less fortunate.

Note on terminology: Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as "classical liberals," by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.

Original post:
Libertarianism - New World Encyclopedia

The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."

These ideas lead to new questions: What's possible? What's necessary? What are the practical implications and the unsolved problems?

Below are a number of different takes on the libertarian political perspective from which you can deepen your understanding;also be sure to check out the videos in the sidebar.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company,1973.

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

According toLibertarianism: A Primerby David Boaz,Free Press, 1997.

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.... advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

Visit link:
What is Libertarian? | The Institute for Humane Studies

Libertarianism isn't all that conservative.

The Gadsden Flag

That's the argument former Bush Administration officials Mike Gerson and Pete Wehner offer in a new -- and important -- essay in National Affairs that posted today. Here's the key paragraph from that piece:

Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries, which is why a conservative political philosophy cannot be reduced to untrammeled libertarianism. Citizens are cultivated by institutions: families, religious communities, neighborhoods, and nations. Parents and spouses, churches and synagogues, teachers and coaches, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are among the foremost shapers of citizens in our republic. But government has a necessary (if limited) role in reinforcing the social norms and expectations that make the work of these civil institutions both possible and easier. That role can involve everything from enforcing civil-rights laws, to saving the elderly from indigence, to restricting the availability of addictive substances.

The Gerson/Wehner piece is an argument for government (albeit it in a limited role) and a rejection of the so-called constitutional conservative/libertarian/tea party movement that has been organized around the principle that the government that does least does best. The essay lands at a time when libertarianism is very much on the march within the Republican party -- as evidenced by the rise of both Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz within the party not to mention the fact that a majority of House Republicans voted for a measure last summer to significantly curtail the government's spying powers.

Sentiments -- voiced by Paul and others -- that the U.S. needs to rethink its role as world policeman, for example, would have been unthinkable in the Republican party of even a decade ago. (George W. Bush was re-elected 10 years ago in large part due to his focus during the campaign on his ability -- and willingness -- to do what it took to keep Americans safe in the world.) Now, Paul's views are held by an increasing number of people who identify as Republicans including, most interestingly, young people (30 and under) who have abandoned the GOP in droves in the last two presidential elections.

Gerson and Wehner, on the other hand, are part of what can be described as the establishment wing of the GOP. And, their essay is the latest sign that the establishment is striking back -- rhetorically and policy-wise -- against a libertarian/tea party movement that, they believe, has run amok over the past four years and threatens to badly damage the party's prospects heading into 2014 and,especially, 2016.

"The alternative to government overreach is not the dogmatic disparagement of government but the restoration of government to its proper and honored place in American life," Wehner and Gerson write at one point. At another, they insist: "Conservatives should offer a menu of structural reforms that do not simply attack government but transform it on conservative terms."

The broad conclusion of the piece? A philosophy that rejects government will never prevail -- no matter how much the American public dislikes the direction that President Obama has led the country. "Conservatives are more likely to be trusted to run the affairs of the nation if they show the public that they grasp the purposes of government," write Gerson and Wehner. So, from health care to immigration to education and beyond, the duo argue that the party needs to be for something rather than against (almost) everything.

Little of that argument is new or unknown to party strategists looking toward not just the 2016 presidential race but also the long term electoral sustainability of the GOP. The problem for the Wehners and Gersons of the world is that the energy of the Republican party at the moment lies with those most willing to move in complete and total opposition to Obama, not those who want to make a nuanced argument about how government isn't always bad (or good). What's an easier stump speech to rile up the base: One that savages Obamacare and the growth of government or one that argues that true conservatism is a belief in some government when and where it's necessary? You already know the answer.

Read the original post:
The Republican rejection of libertarianism. And why it probably won’t work.

Libertarianism Spreads through Social Media
John Stossel interviews Julie Borowski and Matt Kibbe from Freedomworks, who explained that the new social media on the internet is spreading new ideologies ...

By: borisgaydos

Read more:
Libertarianism Spreads through Social Media - Video

As Mediaite readers may recall, Glenn Beck recently appeared on CNN for a full hour of talk with S.E. Cupp. Buried within that interview is one especially interesting nugget: Beck said he would gladly stand with GLAAD in the fight against Russias hetero-fascist laws criminalizing public homosexuality.

Beck told Cupp that he finds it ridiculous that Americans were debating Santa Claus race and a comment made by a Duck Dynasty star while, over in Mother Russia, laws have criminalized public homosexuality and a well-known TV celebrity actually called for the burning alive of gay people.

Hetero-fascism, Beck called it. And he said hed gladly stand with GLAAD in taking a stand against Russias anti-gay legislation.

So why is that so interesting?

Ive long been tough on Beck for suggesting hes sympathetic to libertarianism while openly supporting the likes of Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann two of the most un-libertarian GOP candidates in the 2012 cycle. And then he started to make some progress on many issues, including surveillance and the warfare state.

So Id consider this an even greater step forward. With this one soundbite, Beck has done more to speak out against Russias war on homosexuality than any of his conservative radio colleagues, thereby showing clarity of his belief that while his religious views may say one thing about homosexuality, he does not believe any government has any place legislating such morality. Not only that, but he mentioned fighting arm-in-arm with GLAAD, one of the rights biggest bogeymen.

Bravo.

Watch below, via CNN:

>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Read more:
Glenn Beck: ‘I Will Stand with GLAAD’ Against Russia’s ‘Hetero-Fascism’

Walter Block is at his finest when he subjects the most loathsome jobs and nastiest behaviors to a logical and libertarian scrutiny. Blocks Defending the Undefendable has needled and irritated an entire generation of readers and compelled many to re-examine long-held beliefs in favor of the logic of libertarianism. Now comes volume 2, Defending the Undefendable: Freedom in All Realms (with a foreword by Ron Paul) that promises more such irritation for future generations.

The introduction is a short course in libertarianism. Block explains that libertarianism is a political philosophy that shows when the use of coercion is justified or not justified. The book examines 30 cases that are often seen as illegal, immoral, or unethical. Block analyzes each case by subjecting it to a libertarian standard, and ultimately exonerates each from punishment by government.

Please note: the author is only defending these cases by the political standard of libertarianism and whether they should face coercive threat from the state. It does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that this implies approval and commendation. It simply means they should not go to jail for their behavior.

The examination of these hard cases is what helps us sharpen our understanding of libertarianism and our ability to debate and defend the free society. I agree with the author that studying hard cases strengthens libertarianism and improves the likelihood of achieving a free society. Much of my own research has been on such hard cases, such as drug dealers and smugglers. People, particularly college students, find such cases interesting and often convincing.

Speaking of hard cases, one of my colleagues recently visited South Africa. He saw that private security was everywhere. He was told that he and his belongings were safe with private security, but not safe where government police was in charge. My colleague noted that a nation that understands that the market provides a better service for security, the hardest of all cases, is going to be more easily convinced that the market can provide a better garbage collection service.

The book is divided into seven sections. The first, on trade, contains five short chapters: The Multinational Enterpriser, The Smuggler, British Petroleum, Nuclear Energy, and The Corporate Raider.

British Petroleum is a good hard case because everyone knows about the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, the 200 million gallons of oil that was spilled, and that BP has been vilified by the media pundits and politicians because of it. Block begins by calling the people at BP heroes in part because they do the dangerous work so we can comfortably drive across town at 10 cents a mile.

Block asks if BP knew the dangers of deep water drilling. Of course they did, but government regulations prevent shallow water drilling near the shoreline and provide incentives to drill in deep water far out at sea. Meanwhile government regulators were not doing their job, goofing off, taking bribes, and they failed to upgrade safety standards to account for the new deep water drilling.

As BP was vilified for negligence and as the oil continued to seep into the the gulf, the U.S. government turned down offers of assistance from foreign companies that specialized in such spills and who had more experience than U.S. firms. Ships from foreign countries also offered their assistance, but like after Hurricane Katrina, the volunteers were turned away. Block argues persuasively why such disasters are very unlikely to happen in a libertarian society and that this tragedy was the result of government intervention.

The second section on labor looks at the cases of The Hatchet Man, The Home Worker, The Picket-Line Crosser, The Daycare Provider, and The Automator. In the case of automation, it does destroy some jobs, and creates new jobs, and this should be celebrated by society, not denigrated or sabotaged. Technological advance is the main source of rising prosperity and job creation. Machines can increase our productivity and free up labor to produce other goods that are in short supply. The chapter does a wonderful job of showing how this process takes place and how we all benefit from automation and robots.

See more here:
Walter Block Is Still Defending the Undefendable

The night before the 2008 Nevada Republican convention, the Ron Paul delegates all met at a Reno high school. Although Id called myself a libertarian for almost my entire adult life, it was my first exposure to the wider movement.

And boy, was it a circus. Many members of the group were obsessed with the gold standard, the Kennedy assassination and the Fed. Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job. Even while basking in the electoral mainstream, the movement was overflowing with obvious hokum.

During the meeting, a Ron Paul staffer, a smart and charismatic young woman, gave a tip to the group for the upcoming convention.

Dress normal, she said. Wear suits, and dont bring signs or flags. Dont talk about conspiracy theories. Just fit in. Her advice was the kind you might hear given to an insane uncle at Thanksgiving.

Then next day, I ran into that same operative at the convention, and I complimented her because Ron Paul delegates were being accepted into the crowd. I added, Were going to win this thing.

Bring in the clowns, she said, and smiled before I lost her in the mass of people.

I will never forget that moment: Bring in the clowns. At the time, I considered myself a thoughtful person, yet I could hardly claim to be one if you judged me by the company I kept. The young lady knew something I had not yet learned: most of our supporters were totally fucking nuts.

I came by my own libertarian sensibilities honestly. I grew up in a mining town that produced gold, silver and copper; but above all, Battle Mountain, Nev. made libertarians. Raised on 40-acre square of brown sage brush and dead earth, we burned our own garbage and fired guns in the back yard.

After leaving my small town upbringing, I learned that libertarians are made for lots of reasons, like reading the bad fiction of Ayn Rand or perhaps the passable writing of Robert Heinlein. In my experience, most seemed to be poor, white and undereducated. They were contortionists, justifying the excesses of the capitalist elite, despite being victims if libertarian politics succeed.

If you think that selfishness and cruelty are fantastic personal traits, you might be a libertarian. In the movement no one will ever call you an asshole, but rather, say you believe in radical individualism.

See the rest here:
Why I fled libertarianism — and became a liberal

Libertarians believe that strict determinism and freedom are incompatible. Freedom seems to require some form of indeterminism. "Radical" libertarians believe that one's actions are not determined by anything prior to a decision, including one's character and values, and one's feelings and desires. This extreme view, held by leading libertarians such as Robert Kane, Peter van Inwagen and their followers, denies that the will has control over actions. Critics of libertarianism properly attack this view. If an agent's decisions are not connected in any way with character and other personal properties, they rightly claim that the agent can hardly be held responsible for them. A more conservative or "modest" libertarianism has been proposed by Daniel Dennett and Alfred Mele. They and many other philosophers and scientists have proposed two-stage models of free will that keep indeterminism in the early stages of deliberation, limiting it to creating alternative possibilities for action. Most libertarians have been mind/body dualists who, following Ren Descartes, explained human freedom by a separate mind substance that somehow manages to act in the physical world. Some, especially Immanuel Kant, believed that our freedom only existed in a transcendental or noumenal world, leaving the physical world to be completely deterministic. Religious libertarians say that God has given man a gift of freedom, but at the same time that God's foreknowledge knows everything that man will do. In recent free will debates, these dualist explanations are called "agent-causal libertarianism." The idea is that humans have a kind of agency (an ability to act) that cannot be explained in terms of physical events. One alternative to dualism is called "event-causal libertarianism," in which some events are uncaused or indeterministically caused. Note that eliminating strict determinism does not eliminate causality. We can still have events that are caused by indeterministic prior events. And these indeterministic events have prior causes, but the prior causes are not sufficient to determine the events precisely. In modern physics, for example, events are only statistical or probabilistic. We can call this soft causality, meaning not pre-determined but still having a causal explanation. Still another position is to say that human freedom is uncaused or simply non-causal. This would eliminate causality. Some philosophers think "reasons" or "intentions" are not causes and describe their explanations of libertarian freedom as "non-causal." We can thus present a taxonomy of indeterminist positions. It is claimed by some philosophers that libertarian accounts of free will are unintelligible. No coherent idea can be provided for the role of indeterminism and chance, they say. They include the current chief spokesman for libertarianism, Robert Kane. 1 The first libertarian, Epicurus, argued that as atoms moved through the void, there were occasions when they would "swerve" from their otherwise determined paths, thus initiating new causal chains. The modern equivalent of the Epicurean swerve is quantum mechanical indeterminacy, again a property of atoms. We now know that atoms do not just occasionally swerve, they move unpredictably whenever they are in close contact with other atoms. Everything in the material universe is made of atoms in unstoppable perpetual motion. Deterministic paths are only the case for very large objects, where the statistical laws of atomic physics average to become nearly certain dynamical laws for billiard balls and planets. Many determinists are now willing to admit that there is real indeterminism in the universe. 2,3 Libertarians should agree with them that if indeterministic chance was the direct direct cause of our actions, that would not be freedom with responsibility. Determinists might also agree that if chance is not a direct cause of our actions, it would do no harm. In which case, libertarians should be able to convince determinists that if chance provides real alternatives to be considered by the adequately determined will, it provides real alternative possibilities for thought and action. It provides freedom and creativity. Libertarians should give the determinists, at least the compatibilists, the kind of freedom they say they want, one that provides an adequately determined will and actions for which we can take responsibility.

For Teachers

To hide this material, click on the Normal link.

Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian Accounts of Free Will, Oxford University Press.

Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms : philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery, Vt., Bradford Books. (see "Giving the Libertarians What They Say They Want.")

Kane, R. (2001). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.

Go here to read the rest:
Libertarianism - Information Philosopher