Many times I feel that I am in a time-loop; doomed to repeat myself eternally. I can't count the number of times I have addressed such things as "national borders" or "taxation". The answers don't change no matter who is offended, although I may refine my argument over time. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining since this means new people are reading what I write. I just wish there were a simple way to organize all the answers in an "easy to point out" way.
Really, though, it isn't that hard to figure out for yourself. There is a "libertarian approach" to all things (an approach that increases the individual's control over his own life, liberty, and property), and there is a "statist approach" (one that lets government violate the individual's life, liberty and property). You may not like the libertarian approach, but that doesn't change the reality that every action or decision either weakens the state or strengthens it.
It is always obvious when you prick someone's favorite statist premise. They usually claim that the "libertarian solution" is not "libertarian", but what they mean is that they don't like the implications or they feel incapable of running their own lives. They are scared and want the government to protect them in this one particular instance and try to justify it. Strengthening the state is not ever "libertarian" or "individual-empowering", no matter whether you happen to like it or not.
I don't care if you consider yourself the Universe's gift to humanity, striking from your neocon cavern to refuse "Libertarian" credentials to those who don't "think" as you do. If your position empowers the state, or harms the freedom of individual people, it is not "libertarian" in any way. Whether it is statists on the "right" or the "left" or straddling the "middle" who are sacrificing individuals to the state, I am always opposed.
Comments
I myself am so new to anarchism/miniarchism/libertarianism that I don't understand the difference a whole lot. However, I do know enough that the LP has turned into a new wing of the Republican Party. Which is ironic since the original idea of the Republican party was basically a libertarian society, but sadly the Libertarian Party thanks to the GOP plants isn't Libertarian (as the election of Bob Barr shows). Of course members of the LP being in favor of mandatory taxes shows just how un-libertarian they are.
The Libertarian Party of Minnesota has a pretty good FAQ section of their website that seem to be what miniarchism (as I know it) is about. Basically the government acts like a private business. Things are done voluntarily (funding of the military) or other ways (criminals pay for the jails themselves by working while they're there).
A libertarian/statist dichotomy is as flawed and limited as that of the left/right, or democrat/republican. The truth is that there is a vast variety of philosophies and positions, many overlapping.
Individual liberty and justice hinges on self ownership and self responsibility. When these are understood, one can evaluate the relative rationality of the various groups and philosophies.
If liberty and justice are your criteria for what is good and necessary, then start with self ownership and responsibility...
B- I think minarchism is very unrealistic, even if it were desireable. Once the cancer of external, coercive, government invades your life it begins to grow. If it is "voluntary", it isn't "government".
MamaLiberty- I don't think that libertarianism and statism can overlap, but I do believe an individual can hold different positions on different things. This is what my "political hierarchy chart" (kentforliberty.com/Hierarchy.html) mentions. For the purposes of shorthand (and if you follow the link on "libertarian") you'll see that self responsibility and self ownership are what I am talking about.
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!