A common theme in comments is that what I am advocating is not "libertarianism", but "anarchy".
Libertarians seek to maximize personal freedom while minimizing government interference in the lives of individuals. Zero is the absolute "minimum". Nothing achieves that better than anarchy, in fact, nothing else even has a chance.
I am not speaking of "hyphenated" libertarians or anarchists, since that hyphen only exists in order to negate the "anarchy" and "libertarianism". Whatever is added by that hyphen makes the combined word mean something completely counter to the original word. You may as well substitute "Un-" in every case. (It's like that silly advertising slogan "There's strong, and then there's 'Army strong'")
Anarchy is libertarianism in full bloom; carried to its logical conclusion. It is not an either/or situation. If you claim libertarian status, but don't consider yourself an anarchist, you are being inconsistent somewhere. You are lying to yourself or others for some reason. Which basic human rights do you not want others to exercise? Which government function do you consider important enough to kill innocent people in order to finance or carry out?
Some might claim that you need to have some amount of externally-imposed-by-force government around in order to protect the freedom of the individual. How much government does that take? How do you keep that optimal amount of government constrained? Why has nothing designed to constrain that "perfect amount" of government ever worked? Could it be that by its very nature government always grows and becomes draconian? I have yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.
Comments
The only "government" that can protect the liberty of individuals is their own SELF government, and self defense against others who would impose on them. Self ownership and responsibility are the core parts of that self government.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to use the word "anarchy" in this discussion because most people are fixed on the idea that it means the bomb throwing communists of yesteryear.
Forget "anarchist." Be an individual sovereign. Same thing, without the commie baggage.
Precisely, Kent.
Government is at war with civilization.
Civilized man has long learned that no one has the right to initiate violence - and such prohibition has created a sustainable and prosperous society.
Government refuses to acknowledge that for itself. It demands exclusive right to initiate violence on anyone so to enforce its edicts - in direct contradiction to civilized society.
"Freedom and Civilization" or "Government and Tyranny"; the sides in this fight cannot co-exist for long.
MamaLiberty- That's the reason I link to the definition of the word, as I use it, when I write it. Unfortunately "individual sovereign" has the same kind of baggage to most people. When I have used that term others have made the false assumption I am talking of some "white supremacist" movement. I think the problem for most people is the word "sovereign". You and I know what it means, but most people have no clue.
It would be nice if there were some all-encompassing term for what I mean when I use the words "libertarian" or "anarchist, and what you mean when you speak of "individual sovereign". I know we both mean the exact same thing. I have come to realize there is no way to get the meaning across to the uninitiated without including the full definition each time we choose a term for our philosophy. I suppose a new word could be coined since we have to define what we mean anyway. Maybe "freesapient" fills that need. (The link is on the side.)
I think it important to remember when discussing the truths of personal freedom and responsibility that we are most often in dialogue with folks who have been raised and educated by the state. I am reminded of how elephants are held in captivity; a grown bull can be restrained with a thin rope he is capable of breaking with a twitch. The problem is that for his entire life, that same thin rope restrained him. As a young calf, he would try and try to break free only to learn it was impossible. He believes it and therefore it is his “truth”, no other is possible without a crisis. I have spent years teaching my children the truth about government and there are others out there that have done the same. There are some who can break the rope. The crisis we need may very well be upon us; one can only hope. Tis time to water the tree of liberty with what makes it grow.
Murph
I frequently end up using the term anarcho-capitalist, because I find it necessary to speak out against the commonly held belief that anarchism is, by definition, socialist in nature. Despite the obvious fact that anarchism and socialism are diametrically opposed, the average person - including the average self-proclaimed anarchist - continues to believe that anarchism is synonymous with socialism. So, while you state that anarcho-<anything> is automatically NOT anarchism, I hope you can see that use of the term anarcho-capitalism is necessary to counter the delusion that anarchism is a form of socialism.
As tempting as I find the idea of anarchy, I am also a student of history. Where a power vacuum exists, it is truly rare that truly bad things do not happen when there was no effective organization to defend the community against those who would take your wealth and you lives by force. Governments are organzied to defend us against even worse "governments". Where anarchy reigns in the modern world we find pirates, we find a lack of capital investment because there is no reason to invest where investments have no security. Somalia, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, part of Columbia: these are just some of the places in the world where defacto anarchy exists, and I haven't seen a lot of libertarians lining up to go live in these places.
The US government is certainly terrible, and many state and local governments worse, but most others are far worse. That is the trade-off we endure as our fellow citizens happily support their own enslavement, oblivious to what they are losing.
Geno- "Where a power vacuum exists..." So don't create one. Make certain the power resides in the only place it belongs: with the individuals.
Never pretend that "effective organization" requires "government".
Governments claim to protect us from even worse government, but that is a lie.
Many of the "anarchistic" places you mention are only in trouble because outsiders are trying to impose government on those who want no part of it. How cooperative would you be in such a case?
I'm a minarchist and a libertarian and I see no inconsistency at all. I believe in a government that follows the non-initiation of force principle. The role of government is to protect your rights, especially your property rights.
The most (and perhaps the only) valuable service that government provides is a framework for defining, owning, and defending property rights.
The work of Hernando de Soto has shown that without this framework, poverty is the result. My solid defensible ownership of my property allows me to use my equity to take out loans that could be used to build a business and create jobs and wealth.
If instead of a central agreed upon framework we had a patchwork of private contractors who were paid to defend your property then investors would be more leery of lending money because they may be unsure the collateral on the loan.
In many African countries the problem is too little government (or in the case of some countries laws that forbid property ownership).
Jay- "I believe in a government that follows the non-initiation of force principle."
That wouldn't be a "government" since all government depends upon initiation of force. It might be an organization of some sort, but unless it initiates force (such as in collection of "taxes") it can not be a government since people would be allowed to opt out without losing their homes and jobs.
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!