Part of the problem – as regards libertarianism – is that it’s a philosophy or moral code rather than a political movement. Which it probably can never be – because the libertarian moral system is foundationally anti-political. It does not seek office anymore than a fish seeks the desert.
But that doesn’t mean – should not mean – that libertarians ought to retire from politics. That would be like a fish retiring from water. Continue reading “Libertarianism and libertarians . . .”
Guest Post by Joel Bowman
“Libertarianism: The radical notion that other people are not your property.”
We don’t know who first authored those words, but we’ve noticed the pithy meme doing the rounds on social media sites again recently.
Could people finally be catching on? Probably only the “radicals”…
It sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? A kind of “do unto others…but not without their consent.”
Of course, there are other ways to express this basic principle: live and let live… to each his own and his own to each… and, our personal favorite, mind your own [insert expletive of choice here] business…
Guest Post by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Speech delivered at the 12th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017
We know the fate of the term “liberal” and “liberalism.” It has been affixed to so many different people and different positions that it has lost all its meaning and become an empty, non-descript label. The same fate now increasingly also threatens the term “libertarian” and “libertarianism,” which was invented to regain some of the conceptual precision lost with the demise of the former labels.
However, the history of modern libertarianism is still quite young. It began in Murray Rothbard’s living room and found its first quasi-canonical expression in his For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973.
And so I am still hopeful and not yet willing to give up on libertarianism as defined and explained by Rothbard with unrivaled conceptual clarity and precision, notwithstanding the meanwhile countless attempts of so-called libertarians to muddy the water and misappropriate the good name of libertarianism for something entirely different.
Guest Post by Eric Peters
My recent column, A Long, Hot summer (here) which wasn’t so much a defense of Donald Trump as it was a celebration of the salutary effect Trump’s candidacy is having on the irremediably corrupt GOP establishment, brought forth some defenders of (of all things) Ted Cruz. Now that the other frontman for the irremediably corrupt GOP establishment has been Trumped, all Hope is pinned on the former Bush Machine operator, who is – with an effrontery that would startle Borat – touted as an “outsider” who will rescue “our freedoms” from the grasping talons of the dread Hildebeast.
One such defender of Cruz questions the “Libertarian” (his air quotes) credentials of those who dare to criticize Cruz.
I thought perhaps it might be of interest to print – and then dissect – his missives.
Here goes:
Goodness, I am so glad to be assaulted on three or four sides by righteous “libertarians”! If one cannot figure out that a comment about a two inch penis is a “micro-aggression” than I guess it would be hard to explain just about any thing else in the world. As Mick Jagger once said “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke”. The political process in this country is barely functional. I have hardly endorsed any political candidate over another except to say that a Dem victory in November will be a disaster for any of us who value liberty. If you think that now is the time for revolution in this country, I empathize, but in the same breath dare you to proclaim it so. And while you are at it make sure to publish the names of yourself and all of those who will rise up with you to overthrow the Government. Truth or dare baby. And just to make it interesting, I knew Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. You folks have no idea. Sayonara, I am becoming quite bored with this discourse. Besides, I trust my motor vehicles are quite a bit more interesting than what you drive anyway.
My response:
Continue reading “A Randian Derides “Libertarians” Who Don’t Support Ted Cruz”
A libertarian is somebody who believes, of course, in personal liberty. And liberty is a personal thing; it is not collective. You don’t gain liberty because you belong to a group. So we don’t talk about women’s rights or gay rights or anything else. Everybody has an absolute equal right as an individual, and it comes to them naturally.
There are two rules you have to follow if you are a libertarian, and this is a job for a lot of people. One, you can’t ever initiate force against somebody else. You can’t be an aggressor. You can’t steal from your neighbor. Most people recognize that, but nobody wants to consider the fact, “well, if I send the government — the IRS agent — I can steal all I want from my neighbor.”
No, no aggression. We can’t aggress against each other; we can’t use the government to aggress against each other. We have to live up to our promises. And this works in foreign policy as well. We can’t have preemptive war where our government decides, “Well, we’ve got to attack them and kill them because some day they might come here and do us harm.” That’s aggression, and the libertarian says “no initiation of aggression.”
If you have a contract, which is so key in a free society, … then you agree to something, and you have to follow through. You can’t lie, cheat, or steal — or kill.
Paul’s CCTV interview is focused largely on Paul’s thoughts concerning US presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Paul notes that “we are entering an era that we are recognizing that the system that we have in the United States isn’t working well.” But, Paul also says he sees, for the most part, “the current crop of politicians offering only more government — not less government, which is what I was offering over the many years.”
Paul further expresses in the interview little hope of a candidate from an alternative party doing well against the Republican and Democratic Parties that are essentially “one party” that endorses the “financial system, the Federal Reserve System, the foreign policy, the attack on civil liberties, the welfare state.” An alternative party candidate does not “get a fair shake,” says Paul, who in 1988 was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in addition to his 2008 and 2012 presidential runs as a Republican. “The process is in many ways rigged,” concludes Paul, including via excluding Libertarian, Green, and other alternative candidates from debates and making it hard for them to even be listed on election ballots.
Watch Paul’s complete interview here:
Paul is chairman and founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Recently, an argument was made that libertarianism is okay with hate, since a word formula that libertarians like, the non-aggression principle, or “NAP”, didn’t exclude hate.
Therefore, I’ve concluded that it’s a good time to address the subject of word formulas and rules. And I’ll begin by being explicit about this:
Word formulas are the path to destruction. They are the wrong path.
Word formulas are the province of academia and politicians, of people trying to prove things. They are part of the “winning” game, which goes nowhere except to support domination.
Again, I will be explicit:
Liberty and life are not about proving other people wrong and proving ourselves right. That is the wrong path, and it leads back to bondage.
The case I mention above is one of many, and I’m not interested in attacking the person involved, whom I believe to be a decent man. I’m trying to make a point, not to “win.”
Liberty is a means, not an end.
Liberty matters because it is a condition in which life flourishes. And that’s all.
Our goal is not to achieve liberty; it is for life to flourish.
Hate, as you must know, is the enemy of flourishing life. So, if a “libertarian” word formula preserves hate, something is wrong somewhere. And the problem here is not the specific word formula, but all word formulas.
Words are necessary tools of communication, but they are imperfect symbols of reality and are easily abused. If then, we use these imperfect symbols in formulas and then claim that they define the most crucial things, we place the symbolic above the real, and we lose our bearings.
“To me, that meme [above] is the message of classical liberalism and the philosophy of liberty”…
“People should be allowed to marry whoever they want, put what they want into their bodies as long as no one is hurt, and protect themselves and their property.”…
“I was initially skeptical that political action could make any positive change in the world, but I was convinced by a number of people that I would be best at spreading the message of liberty across the region and Canada.”…
“I do believe if property rights for people and especially First Nations were enforced, there would be a slower, more sustainable and responsible pace of development.”…
“The only say I should have, as a government representative, is with helping resolve disputes.”…
“Gun control is not about protection, so much as it is about control. We’ve seen what happens in countries that allow these liberties to be eroded and it’s not pretty.”
Tim Moen is a Canadian who is apparently the first federal Libertarian Party candidate to run for Parliament from the Fort McMurray-Athabasca area in Alberta.