My layman explanation of libertarianism

[African_Love]

Libertarians are opposed to aggressive violence and coercion (the threat of aggressive violence). Most people claim to be opposed to aggressive violence, in most circumstances, but libertarians are opposed to the initiation of non-defensive violence by anyone, including generally accepted authority figures. A government's authority is maintained through it's ability to initiate violence (how else could they force people to pay taxes or prevent them from doing illegal drugs, selling/purchasing sex, committing truancy etc. ?)

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right. Some libertarians advocate small government (I don't understand how this would work, if a consistent libertarian believes that all taxation is theft), some are anarchists who advocate the abolition of governments. Some advocate capitalism or free market enterprise and some advocate voluntary communism.

Do you agree with the libertarian philosophy? Why or why not?

[JonathanLockely]

I do not hold with this view mostly because it is too Idealist. It is very Woodrow Wilson in it's inability to compromise, and would never work in today's society.

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right.

This is probably the only part I agree on. anything a person choose's to do should be legal, even self-destructive tendencies, so long as they don't interfere with others rights to do the same.

The problem is where does this start and stop? Is public intoxication still a crime? etc.

I have a friend who is a staunch libertarian and we argue this anytime we talk politics.

He even has a touch of anarchism in him, in that he thinks we will one day transcend the need to be governed, or that we could successfully do without government.

[Virgil]

Libertarians are opposed to aggressive violence and coercion (the threat of aggressive violence). Most people claim to be opposed to aggressive violence, in most circumstances, but libertarians are opposed to the initiation of non-defensive violence by anyone, including generally accepted authority figures. A government's authority is maintained through it's ability to initiate violence (how else could they force people to pay taxes or prevent them from doing illegal drugs, selling/purchasing sex, committing truancy etc. ?)

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right. Some libertarians advocate small government (I don't understand how this would work, if a consistent libertarian believes that all taxation is theft), some are anarchists who advocate the abolition of governments. Some advocate capitalism or free market enterprise and some advocate voluntary communism.

Do you agree with the libertarian philosophy? Why or why not?

Your defiition of libertarianism is extremely simplified in parts and completely wrong in others. I was about to explain it, but you know what, I'm not going to. Just think of liberty. Communism is definitely not libertarianism.

[OrphanPip]

I have no problem with social libertarianism, I think people have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone other than themselves.

However, at a level of government it is simply self-destructive. We need to reach ideological middle grounds if we want an actual functional government. A completely hands off libertarian model would fail to protect society from "the tragedy of the commons" as the logical self-interested behavior of the few in some situations leads to the destruction of us all.

I prefer Liberalism with a touch of Socialism

The first part of your definition is a little silly and sounds like it's off a propagandist pamphlet. What political ideology openly supports aggressive violence?

[African_Love]

Your defiition of libertarianism is extremely simplified in parts and completely wrong in others. I was about to explain it, but you know what, I'm not going to. Just think of liberty. Communism is definitely not libertarianism.

I realize it was overly simplified but what points were flat out wrong? Why would you not consider voluntary communism to be libertarian?

What political ideology openly supports aggressive violence?

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes?

[OrphanPip]

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes?

In Canada, the money would be seized from your bank account and you would go along with your business.

This is an issue of social contract, you are taking advantage of the state's provided resources. Those roads, schools, military protection, cost money and your refusal to pay to it amounts to theft. If you don't agree with how many taxes you have you always have the option of emigration and campaigning for a change of policy.

[African_Love]

In Canada, the money would be seized from your bank account and you would go along with your business.

This is an issue of social contract, you are taking advantage of the state's provided resources. Those roads, schools, military protection, cost money and your refusal to pay to it amounts to theft. If you don't agree with how many taxes you have you always have the option of emigration and campaigning for a change of policy.

If this is done without my consent, it is theft and I'm sure at some point, refusing to pay a fine or tax (what if one closed their bank account and withdrew everything they had) is punishable with jail time. Physically restraining someone is a form of violence, never mind that police are authorized to kill you if you resist an arrest.

A legitimate social contract requires the explicit consent of all the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. All, not the majority, of the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. Nobody chose to be born on land that a government arbitrarily considers to be it's territory. Every square inch of land on this planet is considered the property of some government so while some people have the option of emigrating and being subject to the authority of a different government, everyone is subject to the authority of a government. The things the state provide that I enjoy were paid for by stolen money, a small amount of which is my own.

Whether or not anarchism would 'work' is a separate issue from whether or not authority is just. It isn't because authority is maintained through aggressive violence and violence is only justified in defense. No one is justified in violating individual rights for the 'greater good', only individuals can be benefitted or harmed, only individuals have interests. 'Society' is an abstraction, it's a form of anthropomorphism to ascribe collective interests to separate individuals.

[OrphanPip]

A legitimate social contract requires the explicit consent of all the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. All, not the majority, of the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. Nobody chose to be born on land that a government arbitrarily considers to be it's territory. Every square inch of land on this planet is considered the property of some government so while some people have the option of emigrating and being subject to the authority of a different government, everyone is subject to the authority of a government. The things the state provide that I enjoy were paid for by stolen money, a small amount of which is my own.

Whether or not anarchism would 'work' is a separate issue from whether or not authority is just. It isn't because authority is maintained through aggressive violence and violence is only justified in defense. No one is justified in violating individual rights for the 'greater good', only individuals can be benefitted or harmed, only individuals have interests. 'Society' is an abstraction, it's a form of anthropomorphism to ascribe collective interests to separate individuals.

I don't think the practicality of anarchy is all that separate from the justice of government authority. It is an intellectual abstraction to remove the implications of anarchy from the morality of it. Can something which results in harming masses of people be considered the right thing to do? If government authority is necessary to maintain and defend certain rights, then it is certainly justifiable.

As to society having rights above the individual. We attribute rights and welfare to many things which are not individual human beings. Most people acknowledge that harm to nature as a whole is worse than harm to a single blade of grass. Does it not follow that in some cases harm to the individual human is sometimes justified in order to protect all of humanity from a greater harm, especially when that single individual would be harmed even more in the absence of intervention. The goal of taxation is not to harm the individual, it is to benefit society as a whole, the harm to the individual is an unwanted side effect.

[NASSIMLWARD2008]

thank your for all

[African_Love]

I don't think the practicality of anarchy is all that separate from the justice of government authority. It is an intellectual abstraction to remove the implications of anarchy from the morality of it. Can something which results in harming masses of people be considered the right thing to do?

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

If government authority is necessary to maintain and defend certain rights, then it is certainly justifiable.

How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.

As to society having rights above the individual. We attribute rights and welfare to many things which are not individual human beings. Most people acknowledge that harm to nature as a whole is worse than harm to a single blade of grass.

"Nature" cannot be harmed. Only sentient beings with a preference to experience pleasure or avoid distress can be harmed or benefitted.

Does it not follow that in some cases harm to the individual human is sometimes justified in order to protect all of humanity from a greater harm, especially when that single individual would be harmed even more in the absence of intervention. The goal of taxation is not to harm the individual, it is to benefit society as a whole, the harm to the individual is an unwanted side effect.

Consciousness is something that individuals experience. Morality is a matter of maximizing happiness and/or at least minimizing distress (justice is an issue of rights). There is no collective, societal consciousness, only individuals can experience distress or pleasure, only individuals have interests. The distress of ten people does not outweigh the distress of one person since you cannot add, subtract, divide etc. a subjective, individual experience. It is not ethical to cause one person distress in order to benefit ten other people. Taxation does not benefit 'society' because 'society' cannot be benefitted, taxation benefits individuals at the expense of other individuals.

[OrphanPip]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

This is impractical to the point of being almost impossible. Voluntary co-operation as equals defies everything in human nature. Humans act self-interestedly. As groups form, even if they act co-operatively amongst themselves they are bound to come into conflict with other groups and attempt to exploit them. The absence of authority is an impossibility, authority is within human nature and erupts spontaneously. Even without institutionalized authority, like that of the state, certain individuals will always take on moral/ethical/traditional authority in the eyes of others. It is no coincidence that hierarchical society is found within every group of humans on Earth, and amongst other primates.

How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.

Certainly violating some rights of an individual is at times justifiable. It is justifiable to violate an individual's right to not be harmed if they are threatening your life. It is justifiable to constrain the right of free movement of individuals who have shown themselves to be dangerous to other individuals.

"Nature" cannot be harmed. Only sentient beings with a preference to experience pleasure or avoid distress can be harmed or benefitted.

Says you. Only fully conscious beings can act morally, but a plant can certainly be harmed. It is not sentient, but at a chemical level it will fight to survive against dangers in the environment. Pain is itself simply a different form of chemical defense, impulses are simply a different form of optimizing self-perservation.

Consciousness is something that individuals experience. Morality is a matter of maximizing happiness and/or at least minimizing distress (justice is an issue of rights). There is no collective, societal consciousness, only individuals can experience distress or pleasure, only individuals have interests. The distress of ten people does not outweigh the distress of one person since you cannot add, subtract, divide etc. a subjective, individual experience. It is not ethical to cause one person distress in order to benefit ten other people. Taxation does not benefit 'society' because 'society' cannot be benefitted, taxation benefits individuals at the expense of other individuals.

Is morality a matter of maximizing happiness? I disagree that some subjective experiences must always be subservient to others. It is not reasonable to argue that one starving person's desire to remain alive is equal to the desire of a well fed man for a filet mignon at dinner time, it would be justifiable to override one man's desire for a tasty meal to feed one who would otherwise die.

[DanielBenoit]

To add to what OrphanPip said; how is it that the definition of libertarianism becomes analogous to liberty itself? What is liberty? I agree that social libertarianism lies at the root of induvidual civil rights in that the government doesn't interfere with any person/s non-agressive behavior. But a small laisse-faire government in which the only reason for its existence is for national defense is preposterous. I don't think I even need to begin to describe all of capitalisms sins since the industrial revolution, commited by corporations/industries that took advantage of the working induvidual.

Also, in our society today in which governmental systems such as welfare end up benefiting the individual more than in the free market, then why hesitate? How can there be freedom for the working majority middle class induvidual, when the higher few (who already have a hand in government through lobbying) are so free to exploit the worker?

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, that is a a fact of life, but let's not make the poor go broke by letting the government turn its back on us. A libertarian government is a negligent government.


As a last note: I think people too often mistake political principles as set-in-stone metaphysical eternal facts. How is the structure of a tribal society the same as the globalized world market we live in today? How would both imply the same principles? A laisse-faire structure of governmental authority may have been useful in small tribes, but is utterly impractical in a complex inter-connected economy like ours.

EDIT: Also, just as some clarification, libertarian socialism is in fact a real political ideology. It advocates abolishing or at least minimalizing authoritarian institutions that own and control the productive means of private property (i.e., the government, the free market, etc.) and to place it in the hands of the people in a direct democracy (or other forms of democracy). As a matter of fact, the word libertarian stems from this idea and was originally used as a codename for French anarcho-communists who were banned from being published.

This system, just like communism, too is unrealistic utopianism, for modes of hierarchy are bound to occur in a society, as it is just human nature.

[Hurricane]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

You let me know when this works out. Humans are competitive by nature. Individuals, tribes, villages, countries, societies and civilizations all act in the best interest of themselves or their group. Conflict and hierarchy are natural. Maybe a couple of hippies stoned in the woods can live like that, but humanity as a whole will never be able to live in "voluntary cooperation."

How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.

I know you already rejected social contract theory, but there's a give and a take to everything. I give up my "right" to stab someone for cutting me in line so that I don't have to fear random acts of violence done against me, for example. I'm kind of okay with that.
I affirmed that I acknowledge and respect that contract by living within the borders of the United States and maintaining my citizenship. By your citizenship, you acknowledge that contract as well. If you can't handle that, then feel free to go elsewhere. You don't choose where you're born, but you can choose where you go, and frankly, I wouldn't wish living in some of the countries that don't have a government that "steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders" on my worst enemies.

[African_Love]

This is impractical to the point of being almost impossible. Voluntary co-operation as equals defies everything in human nature. Humans act self-interestedly. As groups form, even if they act co-operatively amongst themselves they are bound to come into conflict with other groups and attempt to exploit them. The absence of authority is an impossibility, authority is within human nature and erupts spontaneously. Even without institutionalized authority, like that of the state, certain individuals will always take on moral/ethical/traditional authority in the eyes of others. It is no coincidence that hierarchical society is found within every group of humans on Earth, and amongst other primates.

Hunter-gatherers tend to form egalitarian societies. There's an interesting passage on this by David Leakey that I'm too lazy to search for and post. For example, when a Khoi-San hunter kills a large, non-human animal, he downplays how great of a success it was to avoid appearing vain and boastful. Their culture stresses humility as a means of maintaining social cohesion and equality, I admit, this has to be maintained and it doesn't come "naturally". Bonobos also form egalitarian societies. The concept of human "nature" is flawed, we are cultural animals and everything every single one of us does is human and natural. We have a genetic capacity for very different kinds of behavior, environment determines which capacity is stimulated.

Also, I think you're confusing natural born 'leaders' with 'authority'. Being a charismatic individual with social influence is not the same thing as dominating others through coercion or violence.

Certainly violating some rights of an individual is at times justifiable. It is justifiable to violate an individual's right to not be harmed if they are threatening your life. It is justifiable to constrain the right of free movement of individuals who have shown themselves to be dangerous to other individuals.

When you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own. You can't compare shooting a would be murderer before he unfairly kills you to imprisoning a non-violent person for soliciting sex for money or smoking marijuana.

Says you. Only fully conscious beings can act morally, but a plant can certainly be harmed. It is not sentient, but at a chemical level it will fight to survive against dangers in the environment. Pain is itself simply a different form of chemical defense, impulses are simply a different form of optimizing self-perservation.

A plant can be injured, that isn't the same thing as being 'harmed'. I have a conscious preference as to whether or not I am killed, plants do not. There's no conscious intention in a plant releasing chemicals to avoid danger, intention doesn't exist for us either (the nervous system is a machine, it reacts to stimuli rather than behaving intentionally) but there is the illusion of intention/free will and a conscious desire to experience pleasure, avoid distress and, in normal circumstances, to survive.

Is morality a matter of maximizing happiness? I disagree that some subjective experiences must always be subservient to others. It is not reasonable to argue that one starving person's desire to remain alive is equal to the desire of a well fed man for a filet mignon at dinner time, it would be justifiable to override one man's desire for a tasty meal to feed one who would otherwise die.

Agreed with underlined. I wouldn't let someone starve if stealing from someone more well off could help them. Using violence against someone else (a non-offender) to help the less fortunate is something else I don't really want to get into now.

I may read and respond to the other posts later but I'm watching The Road online and I don't have much time left!

[JonathanLockely]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

The absence of authority is what allows people to be harmed. I would go farther but this is beat to death.


What it boils down to is Idealism vs. Realism.

Libertarians in general have a very Idealist outlook on the world. If you were to talk to a hundred people and ask them if they would rather live in a nation with our President and Congress, or live in a nation where there is no government period, I believe the overwhelming majority would choose the former. It is very easy to say we could have voluntary co-operation as equals, but it practice it doesn't work.

Think of this, we are all equal and their is no government. you need food. You can ask someone to barter for food (their would be no currency) but what if they don't want what you have? Or they don't feel like making anymore food than what they need? Furthermore, the real issue here is what is to stop them from stabbing you for what you have? or anyone else they meet?

we have become so large as a group of people that it would be impossible to exist without government.