Topic: Libertarianism
Categorizing 'libertarians' libertarians from a different perspective - the legal framework libertarians are willing to tolerate.by TheOneLaw
(libertarian)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Current representations of political figures as being 'libertarian' raises the question of what, precisely, a 'libertarian' is.
The Wikipedia entry [01] is (as of this writing) rather illuminating, but consider for a moment what being 'libertarian' actually means. Is being libertarian merely a concept? [02] What defines a person as being libertarian as opposed to not being libertarian? There is no universally recognized boundary to being or not being libertarian.
Various media depict libertarians as a nebulous mob on the fringe of society who disagree with one another on any nearly any given topic. How far removed from reality is this?
Those who are labelled or label themselves 'libertarian' disagree on a wide range of issues such as abortion, gun laws, taxes as well as many other less contentious topics [03]. The definition of a libertarian mindset as some vaguely defined freedoms and possessing various autonomies causes these disagreements. The idea that individuals should be 'free' is more of an obfuscation than a definition.[04] The question 'Free from what?' leads to inevitable conflicts with the sentimental confusions amongst those who worship at the pedestal of government [05].
A more rigorous view of libertarianism is found by examining the legal framework that those who describe themselves as 'libertarian' are willing to support.
In this manner the libertarian spectrum divides very neatly into three categories:
1. The Chaotics. Those libertarians who oppose government on any basis.[06] They regard freedom and the liberty to act autonomously as being undiminished by any consideration. This is a superset inclusive of many Anarchists. Anarchists regard themselves as unique, seemingly unaware that there are many others who instinctively defy law and government without giving the matter any thought. (Cannibals can be very 'libertarian' souls, along with murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.)
2. The Minarchists. Those libertarians who accept some form of 'legal' tapestry under some form of government.[07] They regard freedom and liberty as being principles upon which to base complicated sets of laws to be enforced by proxy. A great deal has been written about Minarchists and discussion of such is trivially irrelevant in this examination. Minarchist thought dominates 'libertarian' literature. Any 'libertarian' participating in political endeavours can be regarded as a Minarchist of some degree. The defining feature of the Minarchists is a requirement for a government empowered with a set of multiple laws. That any set of multiple laws is almost invariably self-contradictory as well as incomprehensive seems absent in Minarchist thought. The degree of disagreement amongst Minarchists is no surprise given that those who accede to government fail to recognize that government, by semantic definition, governs the citizens which comprise the population. Being 'governed' by proxy is thus perceived as somehow being a key aspect of being 'libertarian'.
3. The People of the One Law. This imperceptibly miniscule remnant lives within the One Law: 'No Being may harm another Being'. They regard freedom and liberty as being defined into existence by the One Law rather than principles upon which to base laws. Any other legislation is regarded as either a dilution of or in conflict with the One Law. In this self-imposed concept self-government becomes the sole ultimate requirement. The only collective actions these beings acknowledge is self-defense and ostracism. The differential of this group is that they live by this creed oblivious to governmental coercion. The population of this category is almost nonexistent in the 'libertarian' universe. No one knows who they are because they make no political or social news.
If you regard yourself as libertarian, Where do you fit in this perspective?
------------------------------------------- [01] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian 'Libertarianism' "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The definition of libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue and libertarians agree on no single principle or set of principles. The proper role of government is described from a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral viewpoints. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."
[02] http://www.libertarianism.com/definitions.htm 'Short Definitions of Libertarianism' "Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it." -- definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
[03] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Reform_Caucus 'Libertarian Reform Caucus' "A platform that unites libertarians rather than dividing them. Where libertarians disagree, the platform should be silent. The party should be a tool for all libertarians."
[04] http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/lib-whatlib-define.html 'Defining Libertarianism' "Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life -- as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same." -- Sharon Harris (>), President, Advocates for Self-Government
[05] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government 'Government' "Statist theorists maintain that the necessity of government derives from the fact that the people need to live in communities, yet personal autonomy must be constrained in these communities."
[06] http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html 'Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?' "One very popular charge against anarchism is that it "means chaos." Whether a specific type of anarchism would lead to "chaos" is a matter for analysis; no anarchist, however, ever deliberately wanted to bring about chaos. Whatever else he or she may have been, no anarchist has ever deliberately willed chaos or world destruction. Indeed, anarchists have always believed that the establishment of their system would eliminate the chaotic elements now troubling the world."
[07] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism 'Minarchism' "In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism, is the belief that the only role of the government is to protect individuals from coercion and violence. They believe that a state is necessary, but should be minimal enough to protect the liberty and property of each individual."
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of TheOneLaw only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. TheOneLaw is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"If you regard yourself as libertarian, Where do you fit in this perspective?"
I consider myself "libertarian" in that I do not condone authoritarianism, the opposite of libertarianism, on both the "conservative" or the "progressive" ends of the current political spectrum. Furthermore, I am a minarchist in that I believe that governments do have legitimate roles in human society, but those roles should be very narrow in scope: enforcing voluntary contracts, providing for a common defense, and bringing temporal punishment to those who willfully infringe on the lives, liberty, and property of others. Absolutely everything else should be left up to the private sector including any and all charitable activities; wealth redistribution should always be voluntary and never result from government coercion.
I do not deny that most governments in history go far beyond those roles and usually abuse the powers granted to them. However, I do not believe that the concept of human government is inherently immoral just because government powers are widely abused any more than I believe guns are inherently immoral just because they are widely abused. A governing institution is just a tool in that sense, and every tool can be wielded very wisely for good or very foolishly for evil depending upon its wielders.
Like Dr. Ron Paul said in an interview early in his campaign, the problems in Washington, D.C. are ultimately caused by a lack of ethical people in power, not a lack of laws or regulations. I believe that getting rid of government would not make all of those unethical, greedy, and/or power-hungry people in government just go away. Instead, they would just seek another venue for carrying out their misdeeds in a purely anarchistic society. In other words, the "rats" would just flee the "house" of government as it was being demolished and move into whatever other "houses" were still left standing (corporations? private militias?) afterwards, and we would still be in a similar predicament as a society.
"...getting rid of government would not make all of those unethical, greedy, and/or power-hungry people in government just go away. Instead, they would just seek another venue for carrying out their misdeeds in a purely anarchistic society. In other words, the "rats" would just flee the "house" of government as it was being demolished and move into whatever other "houses" were still left standing (corporations? private militias?) afterwards, and we would still be in a similar predicament as a society."
And indeed there will always be some refuge for the 'rats'.
Having some form of government makes it easier to keep track of who the 'rats' are and what the critters are up to.
[Suggests an idea for my next composition ...(*^*)}]
Minarchist. Although, the People of One Law sounds really nice, it'll never happen in our lifetimes or our grandchildren's for that matter. I prefer pragmatism. One Law sounds like a utopian ideal to strive towards, but like communism (which might work in theory), getting there without usurpations of power and distopia is impossible.
Posted By: Steve Trinward
Date: 2008-10-14 15:20:38
If your first resort when faced with a "social or political problem" is to seek to build consensus, cooperation and voluntary agreement, insofar as what to do about it ... you might be a libertarian.
If your first response is to seek to pass a law, issue an edict, prevent an action by force, or otherwise impose your will on others ... BZZZZT! no chance!
Those who see some level down the chain, where the use of force might be necessary ... we call them Minarchists (and some folks who fit that category may not even see themselves as libertarians). The level of their "libertarianism" is measured mostly by how far down the line they would resort to force ...
Those who see NO role for force (whether by "government" or any other entity) we call Anarchists.
I am a Miniarchist libertarian only on the national level. I feel that National Government has a very limited role as DICTATED by the Declaration of Independence. And delineated by the Constitution. Simply stated, humankind has a natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. National governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. Moreover, the only powers that national government can exert in protecting those natural rights are powers the individual had before he had the government to protect them. This would create a vacuum in the taxing and regulating departments. The national government would be supported by a small import/export tariff. This tax would fall mainly on the importing and exporting States. Some States may not pay any of these taxes unless they expand into those areas.
As a father and head of a household, I would be deemed an autocrat or a Monarch. I set for my offspring curfews, limitations on what can ingest in food drink and smoke. I try to direct their choice of friends. I would limit, what they wear, and the movies they attend. I do this completely during their early years, gradually letting out the tether as they age and mature. Especially as they demonstrate maturity.
On the State level, the State Constitution would guide the activities under the control of the State. Each State would have the major taxing and regulating powers. In effect, this would turn our States into K-Marts and Wal-Marts, competing with other States for populations. This would convert our State Governments into masters of efficiency instead of masters of deception. If they taxed too much or regulated too much populations would begin to migrate to States more population friendly.
On the city level, I am a believer in democracy. I feel small communities have, using majority decides, the right to mold and guide their environs with zoning laws, licensing laws, speed laws and even drug laws. Property taxes should be levied by cities using majority decides. Either that or the taxes collected by the State should be more liberally returned to the cities that generate those taxes.
On the County level, I am a little vague on their duties. I think if I were to look into them, I may find the County level of government unnecessary. A skeletal government with very limited taxing powers to administer the unincorporated areas of the County could exist.This concept should be expanded into a complete study. The study would produce a huge cause and effect learning curve. It would force people to become more active in the political process.
I'm a minarchist, but one whose philosophy reduces to a single principle: NIF, or non-aggression. That's close to your do no harm principle, but not quite; it doesn't rule out harming someone who's harmed you first.
The U.S. Government is a perfect example of why minarchy will never work. Once the government gets it's monopoly on the initiation of force, there is n o stopping government growth. The Constitution is no check on the State's growth beccause it is interpreted by justices of the supreme court, government employees with a conflict of interest.
I was a minarchist, but the failure of the Ron Paul campaign showed me that limited government is not stable. The state always grows until it collapses for economic reasons or is replaced by another regime. If initiating force is wrong for individuals, then it is wrong for the state as well.
Instead of concentrating on the divisions, why not see the one single uniting factor - I HATE THE STATE!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-10-15 11:21:42
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-a-lien-able rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
"I'm a minarchist, but one whose philosophy reduces to a single principle: NIF, or non-aggression. That's close to your do no harm principle, but not quite; it doesn't rule out harming someone who's harmed you first."
Actually, the One Law does not preclude self-defense, but that clarification will need its own venue.
In closing, a bit of clarity from the Foundation for Economic Education: Albert Jay Nock: A Gifted Pen for Radical Individualism http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3580
"In his introduction to Henry Haskins’s 1940 book Meditations in Wall Street, he insisted that the State is the poorest instrument imaginable for improving human society, and that confidence in political institutions and political nostrums is ludicrously misplaced. Social philosophers in every age have been strenuously insisting that all this sort of fatuity is simply putting the cart before the horse; that society cannot be moralized and improved unless and until the individual is moralized and improved.
Nock recognized the futility of violent revolution. For instance, these remarks from his introduction to the 1940 edition of Herbert Spencer’s Man Versus the State: The people would be as thoroughly indoctrinated with Statism after the revolution as they were before, and therefore the revolution would be no revolution, but a coup d’état, by which the citizen would gain nothing but a mere change of oppressors."
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
