Help me understand Libertarianism.

[Sapper740]

I'm constantly told that I don't understand the concept and principles of libertarianism so I've taken it upon myself to learn more. I've recently read several articles from such proponents of Libertarianism as Stephan Kinsella and critiques of libertarianism from others such as this on the zompist.com website: What's wrong with libertarianism. Part of my confusion derives from the fact that most libertarians themselves don't agree on how a Libertarian State (is that an oxymoron?) would look.

The one overarching concept of Libertarianism appears to be NAP, as in the Non Aggression Principle, no?

From "What Libertarianism is" by Stephan Kinsella:

"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion." What Libertarianism Is - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily

So, if this is the main Libertarian creed, then pro-active defense i.e., taking out your enemy's ability to attack your nation by a preemptive strike is evil and wrong. So even if your enemy is massing his forces on your border, you may not initiate or even threaten to to use physical violence until you are attacked? I assume then that libertarians condemned Israel in 1967 when they preemptively attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? Isn't there a point in time when common sense and national security would preempt libertarian values?

just askin'.

 

[Acera]

You can't put libertiarians into a single neat box any more than you can conservatives or liberals. Right now the media is attacking those ideals because it threatens the two major political parties. Need to take into account that when looking at them. The Tea Party, which has a lot of libertarian ideals is perceived as trying to upset the apple cart, and thus hurt the system in place. That system, does not like encroachment, so it's fighting back. We are talking about wide ranging ideas, with a lot of crossover into other parties traditional areas. Conservatives are just as much to blame as liberals for these attacks. Look at how the republican redistricting pushed Ron Paul out of a job, they did the same thing with Allen West in FL.

If you step out of line, you get smacked down. Hence why they are trying to get people riled up over it.

 

[London]

Levels of taxation, the death penalty, and abortion are three of the most divisive issues amongst libertarians. Trying to figure out what the perfect Libertarian society would be is a self-defeating task. Aside form the What's Wrong article (which is absurd), you seem to be on to a good start.

 

[London]

Adam West in FL.

I think you have this guy...



...confused with this guy:

 

[Sapper740]

Levels of taxation, the death penalty, and abortion are three of the most divisive issues amongst libertarians. Trying to figure out what the perfect Libertarian society would be is a self-defeating task. Aside form the What's Wrong article (which is absurd), you seem to be on to a good start.

it's going to take a lot of reading....can you recommend any good articles both pro- and anti- libertarianism that I can look into?

 

[Acera]

I think you have this guy...

View attachment 29547

...confused with this guy:

View attachment 29548

I caught it before you posted this................................

 

[Dawico]

My understanding, put in layman's terms, is "You leave me alone and I will leave you alone. You do what you are going to do and I will do what I am going to do."

Close?

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Start here: Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[JohnnyLoco]

You have to make these three distinctions:

Libertarianism as a modern philosophical movement

Libertarianism the political party

Libertarianism as conflated with Classical Liberalism, or the political philosophies that came out of the enlightenment from such great thinkers as Locke, Rousseau, and Kant and appropriated by the Founders.

 

[breakingcontact]

Weed man!

 

[JohnnyLoco]

It would also do good to read up on Classical Liberalism: Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This passage pretty much sums up liberalism and libertarianism:

‘By definition’, Maurice Cranston rightly points out, ‘a liberal is a man who believes in liberty’ (1967: 459). In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. (i) Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. It is for this reason that social contract theory, as developed by Thomas Hobbes (1948 [1651]), John Locke (1960 [1689]), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973 [1762]) and Immanuel Kant (1965 [1797]), is usually viewed as liberal even though the actual political prescriptions of, say, Hobbes and Rousseau, have distinctly illiberal features. Insofar as they take as their starting point a state of nature in which humans are free and equal, and so argue that any limitation of this freedom and equality stands in need of justification (i.e., by the social contract), the contractual tradition expresses the Fundamental Liberal Principle.

When most people say they are libertarian, they basically mean that they are a classical liberal.

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.

Compare this to a definition of Libertarianism:

In the most general sense, libertarianism is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state. This entry is on libertarianism in the narrower sense of the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.

See, not much difference. Libertarianism is a part of classical liberalism and it focuses more on property rights and is against coercion. The differences between all flavors of classical liberalism and libertarianism begin to arise when you get into specific and technical issues or when you are discussing policy and law in a real society.

Such as the matter of legalizing pot, a libertarian can provide arguments for or against, it is not a matter of everyone that is pro legalization is a libertarian and those who are not are something else. What is that something else, I would also ask. What are the philosophical doctrines of the big government types, protectionists, and the neocons? A lot of research has demonstrated that modern conservatism and neo-conservatism is directly related to Trotskyism, not classical liberalism or libertarianism. Look it up.

 

[Bill11B]

I consider myself a right leaning libertarian because I do support a strong, well funded, well trained military.

However I also support an extremely underfunded, weak central government with practically no power over the daily lives of the citizens who call our great country "home".

 

[leVieux]

In a nutshell, libertarianism tells us that government should not interfere with private property or private behavior which is not injuring anyone else or creating a hazard for others or the society in general.

Government also should not empower or encourage anyone else to do these things to other citizens.

That is my understanding to the concept of libertarianism.

leVieux

 

[leVieux]

I agree; well said !

 

[Acera]

Post 13

In a nutshell, libertarianism tells us that government should not interfere with private property or private behavior which is not injuring anyone else or creating a hazard for others or the society in general.

Government also should not empower or encourage anyone else to do these things to other citizens.

That is my understanding to the concept of libertarianism.

leVieux

Post 14

I agree; well said !

LOL, gotta like it when someone agrees with their own sentiment.

 

[TheDan]

The one overarching concept of Libertarianism appears to be NAP, as in the Non Aggression Principle, no?

Yep... It's generally regarded that the Non Aggression Principle is the basis of libertarianism; everything else is just extra.

So, if this is the main Libertarian creed, then pro-active defense i.e., taking out your enemy's ability to attack your nation by a preemptive strike is evil and wrong.

Forget about governments for a second... If someone stood in front of you holding a gun and said "I'm gonna shoot ya," you would be justified in shooting first right? Pretty sure any person who believes in self defense would agree. Governments don't have any special privileges that an individual wouldn't so if an individual would be justified in using force then a government would be, too.

You can't put libertiarians into a single neat box any more than you can conservatives or liberals. Right now the media is attacking those ideals because it threatens the two major political parties.

+1
RINOs like Christie consider the TEA party to be libertarian; hence his comments about how dangerous it is. Yeah... dangerous to him

When most people say they are libertarian, they basically mean that they are a classical liberal.

Jefferson would be considered a dope smoking libertarian these days

 

[stdreb27]

IMO, and this is a commentary of average smuck on the street, who votes for Ron Paul. Not an academic definition.

They're the anti-establishment establishment, who has abandoned the democrat party, because they've become the establishment.
Or they're rebelling against religion but understand how to balance a check book.

 

[Younggun]

IMO, and this is a commentary of average smuck on the street, who votes for Ron Paul. Not an academic definition.

They're the anti-establishment establishment, who has abandoned the democrat party, because they've become the establishment.
Or they're rebelling against religion but understand how to balance a check book.

Honest question, how much influence do the media have in you coming to that conclusion?


I think another side is that many libertarians don't make their political stance/affiliation well known. Look at it from the perspective of gun ownership. How many here have said that the average soccer mom will think "fatty and snow boots" represent gun owners, when in reality they are a very small minority.

Seems the loudest and most noticed are often the worst representatives if their respective groups.

Also consider that the media often brings up pot and libertarians together. Not because pot is a huge issue, but because their handlers are trying to paint an image of libertarians and the Libertarian party.

 

[Younggun]

Also, libertarians are most definitely not "against religion". Some might be, but it is assuredly not a widespread thought.

 

[stdreb27]

Honest question, how much influence do the media have in you coming to that conclusion?


I think another side is that many libertarians don't make their political stance/affiliation well known. Look at it from the perspective of gun ownership. How many here have said that the average soccer mom will think "fatty and snow boots" represent gun owners, when in reality they are a very small minority.

Seems the loudest and most noticed are often the worst representatives if their respective groups.

Also consider that the media often brings up pot and libertarians together. Not because pot is a huge issue, but because their handlers are trying to paint an image of libertarians and the Libertarian party.

Not really at all. Just talking to a lot of "libertarians". Who aren't really libertarians. Just Ron Paul supporters.

I lived in Houston during Paul's rise to national prominence. Thought that his supporters like Paul would recognize the need to glom onto a major political party as the best way to further their cause.

But they vast majority of them where just anti-establishment occupy America type folks. Or the guys who have some beef against religion. They view the "neocon" as a far more dangerous ideology than anything the dems offer today.

Keep in mind these are generalizations. There are exceptions.

I'd love to see some poll but I'd bet money that Paul pulled more former dem voters than former republican ones.


I cannot tell you how many people I heard, "I'm debating between voting for Obama or Ron Paul"