Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.
To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term “libertarian,” what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.
It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.
Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.
But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyone’s rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)
Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesn’t have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.
We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.
Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kant’s categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.
The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.
Let’s leave the philosophy of non-aggression where it belongs, and feel free to supplement it with any other moral or ethical codes we also hold. It is a mistake, however, to try to combine all our views about life into one amorphous blob of watered-down libertarianism.
not…
[/img]
They don’t call the GOP the party of stoopid for nuttin’..
[img
And those 2 are supposed to be opponents.
Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016 should make the scam obvious to many.
Ralph Nader’s America: Impeach Obama, decriminalize drugs, libertarians & progressives unite!
By Jeff Zeleny, Jordyn Phelps, and Alexandra Dukakis
What if Washington politics were no longer defined by partisan gridlock but instead by a cross-party alliance that forged solutions? The alliance would be unstoppable.
That’s the premise of the new book “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State” by longtime political activist and five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who contends that such a left-right alliance is not just the stuff of imagination but is actually emerging.
“On Capitol Hill, I’m seeing more and more in Congress, left and right,” Nader told “The Fine Print.” “It was a vote in the House over a year ago over the NSA snooping, it almost broke through … so we’re beginning to see formulations that once they click together, they’re unstoppable.”
Nader was referring to a vote in July 2013 over a measure known as the Amash Amendment that would have curtailed the National Security Agency’s ability to collect bulk phone call data. The measure narrowly failed by 12 votes, in part due to a concerted White House lobbying effort on Capitol Hill.
Nader expects there is going to be a growth of left-right alliances in Congress, pointing to the war on drugs and bank regulatory efforts as areas of possibly confluence. On the war on drugs, Nader said that the United States should entirely decriminalize and move to regulate all drugs in the same way alcohol and tobacco are regulated.
“Tobacco leads to the deaths of over 400,000 Americans, hard drugs lead perhaps to 8,000,” Nader said. “People who are addicted should not be viewed as criminals. They should be a health problem, the way it is in alcoholism and tobacco.”
But Nader qualified that the success of his envisioned left-right alliance is dependent on strong leaders. He said Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, has the potential to be a leader for the alliance, but added that he thinks the Kentucky Republican has certain shortcomings as a leader.
“He’s a mixed bag, you know, he’s evolving. He’s broadening his issues that he’s talking about and they’re beginning to resonate,” Nader said. “On the other hand … he has problems dealing with people.”
Paul’s “problems” aside, Nader predicted that he will be “the one to beat” in 2016 in a Republican contest that is also likely to also include Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. He also made it clear what he does not want to see in 2016: A Jeb Bush – Hillary Clinton matchup.
“You want a dull campaign? Try Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton in 2016,” Nader said. “It’ll only be exciting for people who are interested in dynasties and personalities.”
Nader said he never tells anyone not to run for president but that he would oppose a Hillary Clinton presidential bid.
“She’s turned into an international militarist,” he said. “She’s far more hawkish than Obama.”
Nader suggested that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D – Mass., would be a strong alternative to Clinton, with her understanding of “corporate power,” but said that Warren won’t run because Clinton has “dried up” the prospects for other Democratic contenders to compete.
Nader has his own vision for who he’d like to be president and has even put forward a proposal of 20 billionaires who he encourages to run for president – a list that includes media mogul Oprah Winfrey and environmentalist Tom Steyer.
“That’s where we’re at now: 20 billionaires with some enlightened background and I said run. Run! Run as an independent,” Nader said. “Just to shake up this two-party tyranny … So maybe one of them will run. We certainly have enough of them, don’t we?”
When it comes to the current president, Nader said that Obama has violated the Constitution on several occasions and should be impeached.
“Oh, most definitely,” Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. “The reason why Congress doesn’t want to do it is because it’s abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution.”
Nader said the president’s use of military force in Libya has been his most “egregious violation of the Constitution.”
You can’t see Boner’s right hand in that picture with Bathhouse Barry. Boner’s giving Barry a rectal exam with prostate massage. He’s no Reggie Love, but Bathhouse Barry sure seems to be enjoying it.
Former presidential candidate Ron Paul told Britain’s Channel 4 News the US sanctions against Russia are an “act of war.”
Iran Press TV reported:
Former GOP congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says US sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis are an act of war, adding that the American people are tired of US-imposed wars.
When you block the trade of goods and services with a particular country, it may not be quite as bad as dropping bombs, but it is a “symbol of a war,” Paul told Britain’s Channel 4 News on Monday.
The American people want no part of a conflict with Russia, just as they wanted no part in a war against Syria last summer, but the US administration is still “playing games” by threatening Russia and adding sanctions, he added.
“We’ve been involved too much and I take a non-interventionist foreign policy position. It’s not our business, it doesn’t serve anybody’s interest, it’s part of the same thing that led us into the disaster in the Middle East, a lot people die, a lot of money spent and we’re still suffering the consequences of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and there’s the threat of war in Syria. We don’t need another threat. The American tax-payers don’t want it and our government thinks they can get away with it,” said Paul, who sought the presidency of the US on three occasions: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012.
Read more at http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/04/agree-disagree-ron-paul/#C0DdZCrrki7rXcWq.99
I disagree. I think Austrian Economics is a vital part of modern libertarianism. It basically proves libertarianism to be right. And it offers feasible ways of implementing it in real economic life. To not mention Austrian Economics in context with libertarianism doesn´t seem right.
Voluntary collectivist organisations still tend to fail, and in failing, they turn involuntary regularly or disintegrate. It´s like suicide, the libertarian does not stand in your way, if you want to do it. But since science warns of the economic impossibilities of collectivism, you have to ask the collectivist, whether they are aware of what they´re trying to do.