If you are not a libertarian (under my understanding of the concept), it means one of two things-
It could mean that you are not aware of what is going on. The mainstream media works very hard to keep you in the dark. They hide facts that would be embarrassing to their version of authoritarianism, while skewing information to make such authoritarianism seem reasonable or even necessary. They mercilessly attack the "other" authoritarian ideology to distract you from noticing their own inconsistency. Most people don't want to examine their own beliefs too closely anyway. It is uncomfortable to realize you have been supporting policies that are harmful to people, so you might be a willing participant in your own deception.
On the other hand, if you are not a libertarian it might mean that you do know what is going on, and you approve. You probably don't approve of everything, but you approve of enough of the authoritarianism as to compromise with evil in some areas. At least admit what you are supporting. Government is based upon murder. To support its actions when they go along with your own prejudices is to be complicit. No government program or policy is worth killing people over, nor worth destroying lives to finance. Not a single one. Not the "War on (some) Drugs"; not "Social Security". Not the US military; not Medicaid. "Not "national borders"; not "universal health care". Not "gun control"; not "defense of marriage". Those are all simply two sides of the same lie- that government owns you and can dispose of you or "protect" you as it sees fit.
I will let you in on a few little secrets: it is never "necessary" to attack anyone, and "collateral damage" is a euphemism for murder. It may be disconcerting, but "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" makes you the aggressor and makes you wrong. "Society" is only a collective term for individuals. Harm an individual and you are harming society no matter what you may claim. There is no such thing as "the common good". A "right" can never impose an obligation on another person. Theft is still theft no matter who is doing it. "Laws" that try to regulate or control anything other than theft or aggression are not real laws, and supporting or enforcing them means you are committing evil. This is not about the false divisions of "right/left" or "conservative/progressive"- this is about right and wrong. Period.
Comments
A well thought out article. I do not necessarily agree with everything, as I understand it, though. Government is required to establish a common monetary system (i.e., coin money only) that can be used be all. It should also be charged with settling disputes between citizens as well as controlling international commerce when a major imbalance exists. That is the limit. I have always said that, if exercising your "rights" infringes on another's "rights", it is not a right. I like your way of putting it better, but they are both ways of stating the same principle. The last statement that I would make is that taxation and laws are required to some degree, but ONLY to the point of satisfying the duties charged to the Government. Anything further is theft and/or oppression. Our current U.S. Constitution does a fairly good job at stating these basic points. Too bad it is being ignored.
For those who don't know me, I am a registered Republican who calls himself a Constitutionalist.
'Without Borders" is NOT Libertarian. It is anarchy. Take the doors off your own house firat
ed- My house and your house are private property. You have no obligation to allow anyone access. "National borders" are a usurpation of your property rights by government. How can you have, and "protect", borders without violating the human rights of the individuals who live along that border? You can't. "National borders" are not libertarian; they are pure statism.
GOSTRATH- Why should government establish a "common currency"? That hasn't worked so well since government has an incentive to start counterfeiting in order to be able to spend more, and has an incentive to devalue the money ("inflation") for the same reason. Let people choose their own competing forms of money and let the market decide the value of each. Fiat money always fails.
Private arbitration would work better at settling disputes between denizens (not "citizens" since government has no claim on the people who live anywhere). -to be cont'd...
Cont'd... What is a "major imbalance" in international commerce, and why should government interfere in the market? Protectionism only hurts you and me in the long run by increasing the prices we will pay and by limiting our choices. If Chinese manufacturers wants to send us real products in exchange for the federals reserve's counterfeited receipts how are you being harmed in any way? The Chinese are getting the short end of that stick, but it is their choice.
Taxation is still theft whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It doesn't matter if the Constitution authorizes it, and in fact that is evidence that the Constitution was never a very good idea. But now, due to the actions of the US government, the Constitution is dead and gone. tinyurl.com/oeavyo
GOSTRATH -
The trouble with (mandatory) taxes is that it's still two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The two wolves get to decide what is right for everyone else and even a Constition can't stop them.
Even if it's "necessary" services it's problematic. It's government officials deeming that certain things are nessary and other things are not. If they deem roads are necessary, so mandatory taxes are needed, what's stopping them from deciding health-care is "necessary"?
If roads are necessary, what's stopping the government from deciding that 50% of people's money is needed and not just 5%?
There is no rational reason why a 'government' is needed to coin money. All that is needed is the agreement between trading parties to use the currency involved. If I print money, and you are willing to take it - we have a deal. Because you may want to trade with others, it may be beneficial to use a more commonly accepted currency: but this still does not create a need for 'government' (a State).
Taxation is simply immoral. Justifying an immoral action because it achieves a desired 'end' is not an acceptable action. The END never justifies the MEANS. The only moral means of paying for a service is voluntary exchange.
The only moral way a State can operate is to enter the free market and compete with everyone else to offer its services.
Society is not a collective term for individuals. Society is a fiction, and contemporary society for those who wind up in the baleful glare of the military/CIA torture machine goes in the "horror fiction" category. All collectives are fictional, especially marriage which is a legal fiction for making two persons into one. (And why stop at two? Part of the nightmare.)
There is no "the government." It is a fiction. It is a lie told for the benefit of those who run the state. Governments are not now and have never been instituted amongst men for the purpose of protecting life, liberty, and property. No.
Governments are instituted for separating the unwary from their property for the benefit of those who run the state. Therefore, I propose Avoiding Government and Operating Realistic Individualistic Sensible Markets. Agorism.
Don't just give up the fight over which authoritarian brand gets to slam its red hot iron into your ass. Get as far away as possible.
What you describe is not libertarianism. It's anarchy.
Beth- Anarchy is libertarianism in full bloom. It is not an either/or situation. If you claim libertarian status, but don't consider yourself an anarchist, you are being inconsistent somewhere. Libertarians seek to maximize personal freedom while minimizing government interference. Nothing achieves that better than anarchy.
Interesting comments. I like most of when the columnist had to say in the article.
IMNSHO - There are essentially three schools of libertarianism:
1) Constitutional minarchists, like me, who believe that our federal government should be constrained by the constitution
2) Beltway minarchists who like the government to control a few things they think are important, in controversial areas.
3) Anarcho-capitalists who believe the only good government is pretty much no government.
Oh and sorry Kent but open borders will not work in our modern nationalist world. The property rights argument you posit is hollow. Consider:
1) We in the US have a right to reserve and protect for ourselves our natural resources and man-made capacities: highways, hospital beds and even law and fire protection. There is not room for everyone so we must choose how many and who.
2) What would an anarcho-libertarian do if, say, 1 million North Korean troops were allowed to base in Tijuana? Nothing is a rather short-sighted answer.
ToddO- As to your point 1): Private property rights, when respected, can do all you desire without harming any innocent person. No welfare for ANYONE. Pay for what you use. Under this situation there is room for everyone, but without government welfare there is no incentive to move to an area in order to take advantage of "freebies" which are never really "free". Migrants (and everyone else) would pull their own weight.
Point 2): "Nothing" wouldn't be my answer. Rather "nothing that violates the right of people to determine their own destiny as long as they harm no innocent person". Take away the incentive to invade (have no centralized government that can be defeated and coopted). Let everyone have any kind of weapon they wish, just as the Second Amendment guarantees. Trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. That would go a long way toward taking away any reason other countries have to invade or attack.
Good article. Keep up the fight.
Absolute libertarianism / anarchy will not work in the here and now, because there are always social forces that will fill any power vacuum. It is always abetted by the fact that some like government and a few even adore it. A large enough force comes and you and your neighbors will not be able to fight them off. You will either be dead or subjugated by some violent autocrat. I would rather live in the current system, and fight for the most freedom I can in the existing framework. The likely eventual alternative for us following the path you lay out is unpalatable.
It does work, here and now, in the real world we all live in every single day. Your argument has been used as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility for too long.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!