I have come to this question after reading the replies on some of your discussions…
How are sayings like “I think in a free market you have to pay for your rights” and a so many pages discussion about homosexual’s marriage rights fitting with the libertarian concept?
Which rights should one pay for? Natural rights? Legal rights? Social rights? How do you define each of it?
As about the marriage rights, a civil union is regulated by the state. When one discusses the lawfulness of it, then one implicitly allows to the state the right to interfere with a natural human right, the right to privacy.
If I am understanding it well, the Non-Aggression Principle is the mainstay of the libertarian philosophy and it says "You are free to live your life as you wish, provided you don’t initiate force against others."
So can you please explain to me the contradiction between this principle and Your principles and, ultimately, what is a libertarian for The Mises Community?
Thank you for your time.
I am editing my question, as I am receiving links and definitions from the book, and what I wish is to read Your Own definition of a libertarian, thank you…
A libertarian is a person who believes in the non-aggression principle. This entails certain negative rights.
However, to protect these rights from villains, someone necessarily has to pay something in an in imperfect criminal world. You now have two choices:
Everyone is responsible for their own protection
Socialize protection so that everyone is protected
obviously has the disadvantage of creating potential non-aggression “gaps”, especially for the materially poor. 2) contradicts the non-aggression principle (you have to raise taxes). And that’s the dilemma we’re in.
I understand the negative rights - not to be murdered, not to be raped, not to be trespassed upon, not to be robbed, not to be kidnaped, etc.. If I can handle my own protection why should I pay for them?
And this doesn’t really answer my question about how the “marriage rights” are included in the fundamental right to be free…
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.
If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation.
Well, if you can handle your own protection, then there’s no need for you to pay anything to anyone.
However, think of the elderly or sick poor. How would they handle the protection of their liberties? Were they robbed, would anyone give his own money to pay for restitution and prosecution purposes? If not, can we really talk about a libertarian society where everyone’s rights are protected?
As for marriage rights, in libertarian theory, you are, of course, free to engage in whatever mutually agreed-upon relationship you wish. The debate about marriage rights in a statist framework is mainly fueled by the fact that the state controls the definition of marriage and thus, fighting for the state to recognize one’s relationship as a marriage may not be an actual success for liberty.
That is my definition. If you support the NAP and homesteading principles and try to apply them, then you can call yourself a Libertarian. Certain issues arise like FRB with some folk (pro / against), but both sides are attempting to apply the same principles.
Unjust war on the other hand is beyond the end of the line. Neo-con, objectivist etc is a more suitible liable for war violates both the non aggression principle and property rights. It is also a remarkable tool for the growth of the State. [:)]
I agree, this needs to be solved. They can trade other services for the protection one. One can be poor, but be skilled / have a knowledge in a domain and trade it, the elderly can teach, etc…there are always solutions, as long as one is opened…
OK.
I am not going to start a conversation about statism. I already know what is to know about it and it is of little interest for me.
Rothbard starts on page 23 by giving a broad definition of what being a libertarian means. From there he deals with many of the specifics and answers a lot of the questions that you brought up. In part 2 of the of the book Rothbard applies libertarian thinking to many of the problems plaguing our world today.
The elderly have had their entire lives to build up a pool of savings for retirement. Also with the privatisation of social security they would have had the option but not the obligation to participate. If a person fails to have a sufficient retirement plan in place upon retiring they could seek help from other individuals or charities but noone would be required to help them. On a positive note in the absence of a government people would be allowed to keep more of their income and would have more money to help those that are in need.
I agree with Block and I interpret the NAP to mean that the initiation of aggression should be punishable. A libertarian is anyone who adheres to the NAP.
Well, you are not quoting libertarians but conservatives who pretend to subscribe to some features of libertarianism.
Right, but conservatives hate that. They want ‘order’, rules, tradition, community, etc. Libertarianism is an individualistic philosophy - people should be treated as ends not as means.
Yes, I know. There are some people in this site who are fanatical ‘cultural conservatives’/tribalists and misuse economics in order to ‘scientifically’ prove that their backwards views are ‘right’. What I’m saying is : don’t assume they represent libertarian philosophy.
Also, the fact that some actions are theoretically compatible with libertarianism doesn’t mean they can be classed as libertarian. Case in point, racism. While private property and free association imply that one is free to be a narrow minded bigot, it doesn’t follow that bigotry and racism (pseudo scientific collectivism) are libertarian.