Libertarianism and libertarians . . .

Via Eric Peters Autos

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.

We live in an imperfect – a political – world. People are going to vote. If libertarians abstain from voting on the moral principle that it is wrong to participate in a morally imperfect (even a deeply flawed) system, then the votes of people who are not libertarians will count more.

If libertarians abstain from putting themselves – and libertarian ideas – forward as alternatives to ideas (and people seeking office) who are not libertarians, they have helped to ensure that libertarian ideas will not be heard (and possibly listened to) and that people who are decidedly not libertarians – or even “small government conservatives” – will end up holding the political offices that will determine whose ideas guide and determine policy.

The libertarian’s moral dilemma is a thing of his own construction. It is the false dilemma presented in the form of refusing to have anything to do with the imperfect (politically) for the sake of the perfect (which will never be) and which necessarily results in the worse-than-imperfect.

It drapes an unearned moral sanction on the libertarian who votes for the office-seeker who is less-worse than the alternative – who is assured of winning the office if enough people refuse to vote for the less-worse alternative. Their refusal stems from an understandable distaste arising from what they consider to be sanctioning the evil and thereby both enabling and perpetuating it.

But the hard fact is the evil isn’t going to lessen – much less go away – by not seeking less of it. And if one can vote to cause the mugger who is holding a gun on you and demanding money to lessen his demands, is that not preferable to being forced to hand over all of your money? Does voting for the former amount to sanctioning the mugging?

Naturally, we who are libertarians would rather not be mugged at all. And would prefer no one else gets mugged, either. Libertarian moral philosophy is the only secular philosophy that says thou shall not steal. It makes no exception for stealing when it is called “taxes.” Every human being has a natural right to that which is theirs, which no other human being has any “right” to take the smallest portion of. Libertarians hold that the ultimate form of property is that which we possess in ourselves. That to assert the smallest degree of ownership over another person’s person is to assert a master-slave relationship, irrespective of whatever relative freedom the slave is permitted by the master. The existence of the relationship is established by the fact of the relationship.

Libertarians support all that flows from the above, including the right to be let alone – no matter how much someone else might not like whatever it is you are doing – or not doing. So long as whatever you are doing (and not doing) cannot be shown to have caused material harm to another person, libertarians say the right to do as you like is a moral absolute. It does not mean anyone else is obliged to like it – much less support it.

Libertarians like the idea of voluntaryism – which means just that. People should be free, by right, to deal with one another (or not) on a purely (and mutually) voluntary basis. That it is morally wrong to force anyone to have to deal with anyone else he’d otherwise prefer to avoid dealing with – for whatever reason. Avoiding someone is not harming that someone. To say otherwise is to say the person who is avoiding somehow owes the person he wishes to avoid a positive good of some kind, such as in the context of being compelled to do business with him.

This is morally absurd – unless you believe in slavery. We are each owed nothing more (or less) than that our rights be equally respected. Persuasion and freely-given cooperation are the only moral basis for human interactions – not coercion. You are responsible for your actions. No one is responsible for the actions of others.

These are all excellent ideas.

But how will such ideas be propagated by refusing to participate? Is it immoral to make common cause with people who agree with many of the things libertarians agree on, if they do not agree with everything libertarians insist on?

Principles are important – and should always be defended as principles. Stealing is always wrong, as a moral principle. We each have an absolute and inviolable right to our property, including our physical bodies. And the corollary – which is the principle that no one has any right to assert ownership to the smallest degree over anyone else’s body. These are appealing principles because they respect and benefit everyone to the same degree.

Do we who esteem such principles compromise them by establishing common cause with people who do not share them entirely? There is an almost religious aspect to such an insistence in that it is an insistence upon moral perfection. That may apply in heaven, but we live in this imperfect world where the best that can be hoped for is the better rather than the worse.

Arguably – ironically – we strengthen the much-worse by refusing to find common cause with the better, wherever such is possible. This does not mean we endorse the less-than-perfect. Especially if we continue to defend the principles. Theft is theft, no matter what it is called. No matter how many vote for it. No one owns anyone else and – thus – no one has any right to tell anyone else how to live their life.

So long as these principles aren’t compromised, libertarians are not compromised by finding common cause with people who are not entirely libertarian where they can.

Ronald Reagan – who wasn’t a libertarian – said a wise thing once about “the man who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.” This is wise politics without compromising one’s moral philosophy.

And the more “80 percenters” we libertarians find common cause with, the closer we may get to 100 percent.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

27
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
MrLiberty
MrLiberty

Government is the greatest evil ever created by man. Everything else stems from that.

Glock-N-Load

MrLiberty,

I have seen (and read your comments) on TBP for yeeaarrss now. You are NOTHING if not consistent.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty

What’s the point in not being consistent?

Anonymous
Anonymous
Glock-N-Load
Glock-N-Load

I agree. And once the truth of something (“Government is the greatest evil ever created by man. Everything else stems from that.”) is discovered/realized, pound the crap out of it. Repeat is endlessly.

bucknp
bucknp

The people asked God for a king and God gave the people a king. Government was not created by man.

Vigilant
Vigilant

There is no point in it. It just shows that someone is weak in character.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Functional people admit when they’re wrong, and learn from the mistake.

You, on the other hand, . . . .

Jackals And Grackles
Jackals And Grackles

Agreed on Mr Liberty.

I too have been consistently harping since late 90’s and know many others doing the same, day in, day out for decades now.

1.) Property Rights
2.) N.A.P. (non-aggression principle)

These are what all govs are originally brought into being for. Enforcing them may come from a “group(s)”. That group(s) can be decentralized. Their power can be decentralized and limited. That is not perfect – no system can be. How do we reduce abuse of power to the smallest potenital minimium, is the question, not how to eliminate it.

Also, even if it was agreed that .gov is a necessity, the article entirely glosses over the FACT that it is not voting that matters, but counting the votes.

The FACT is, voting is corrupted and always has been. Eric’s article reads as if it is an absolute given that elections are sacred things that corruption never touches. The opposite is true and at this point, the corruption touches EVERY election and EVERY lever of power that has any value. So, School Board in St. John N.D. might still be honest! School board in L.A.? CORRUPTED. The article/premise kind of falls apart once the corruption angle is brought out.

I think there is a logical flow to the centralized power structures that have been created and there is a logical flow to disassemble them.

The “flow” is layed out in the 10 Commie Planks.

The base of the “flow” is centralized taxation at rates that would make Kings of old envious.

Then control of a centralized money supply and massive abuse, for the benefit of the few, of said money supply…to the point where the “money” is no longer even real money, but NOTES circulating with nowhere near the backing necessary. This IS a form of slavery/servitude.

Then control/levy “property rents” in the form of Centralized, unavoidable property taxes.

Then control thought itself via Centralized schooling.

That’s their little “harmonious circle of abuse”. DESTROY IT.

PLANK 5 (Central Bank – CENTRAL…there is that word again) is one of the (THEE?) MAIN ROOTS of gov power becoming centralized, abusive, and so large as to start seeing massive diminishing returns.

The first steps:

1.) Admit we/U.S. (others even more) are a bunch of Commie bastards, or minimally, being run by them.
2.) Identify Commie-Rooted national ills: We are, without doubt, practicing at least 7 of the Commie Planks. Ending the practice of those planks ALONE would make, even centralized, “governance” much more in line with moral codes found in the thinking of “libertarianism”.
3.) DESTROY the institutuions identified as main levers of power centralization.

Voting? At this point? NO.

Dis-engaging takes away power. Not more engaging!

bucknp
bucknp

In the GOP primaries of 2008 I used the voter registration cards of twelve deceased individuals to cast votes at different voting locations.

lamont cranston
lamont cranston

In any self-managing group, there has to be governance. If you can’t find the Radio Classics audio of “Earth Abides”, find the audio book or buy its Kindle.

The RC audio has a great scene where the group’s leader/founder convenes their council to decide on a death penalty. Gripping, but their logic is clear and unanimous. AND THE LEADER CARRIES IT OUT PERSONALLY.

Glock-N-Load

Sounds dictatorial, no? Is this where we are heading with a President?

bucknp
bucknp

“Take the guns first.”

august
august

“Earth Abides” is a solid piece of fiction. Hopefully it remains fiction.

Anonymous
Anonymous

When you find you have been shunted into a political dead end, it’s not time to do more of the same thing that doesn’t work.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/01/16/did-milton-friedmans-libertarianism-seek-to-advance-jewish-interests/

Jdog
Jdog

It is true that libertarian-ism is more of a philosophy than an actual political movement, which is why it is nearly impossible to get a libertarian elected. The majority of libertarians likely don’t vote because at heart they are anarchists and do not support any government. Kind of hard to get elected to office, when your supporters do not believe in government or elections to begin with.
The facts that all government is evil, and that no man has any legitimate power to tell another man what to do or how to live is undeniable.
It is also a fact that democracy when used to impose the will of the plurality upon the rest of society is a fascist system.
It is also an undeniable fact that a portion of mankind are complete assholes who have no concept of right and wrong or any conscience for harm they cause other people, and there must be some sort of system in place to deal with those people and their criminal acts.
We therefore have a conundrum. In order to have a society, where people can live in relative safety, and criminals are punished for harming others, we must employ a governmental system with some tyranny and democracy, to protect the rights which we then impose on with government.
The best we can do as imperfect human animals, is to keep government to the very bare minimum, and to never deceive ourselves about the fact that anyone who seeks the power of government is probably morally corrupt and will abuse whatever power they are given.

m
m

The key question of any “modern” philosophy seems to be their take if authority (in the original meaning of the word) is accepted to have any kind of positive to it.
If not, it [the modern philosophy] always becomes a progressive fascism over time.

Your Freudian slip is telling in that regard:
“no man has any legitimate power to tell another man what to do or how to live”
No. Wrong. No man has any legitimate power to force another man what to do or how to live.

august
august

>>>No man has any legitimate power to force another man what to do or how to live.

Any group has the right to exile a member who has repeatedly and seriously violated group rules.

A problem (i.e. the death penalty) arises when exile cannot realistically be enforced.

We/I not only have the right, but the duty, to get rid of the truly malevolent among us… by any means necessary.

m
m

So the group has authority?
Where does it take it from.

august
august

I think we’re starting to quibble about words.

The group has the right to protect itself (“authority” be damned), and it will.

Admittedly, “self protection” is a slippery slope, which has been massively abused in the past, present and (no doubt) future. It’s really why legal systems exist, even in a hypothetical “100% libertarian” society.

Jdog
Jdog

In this example, it is not authority, it is self defense.

m
m

Wrong again. A group creates a system by defining some self-created group rules.

The problem with every system is that self-preservation of the system easily takes precedence, over following the foundational morals which your self-created group rules were [hopefully] based on.

While it is easy to imagine something so bad that a group exile is justified, it is even easier to envision exile rulings that are clearly excessive, for any kind of personal or group pressure reasons.

Jdog
Jdog

I stand corrected, you are right.

bucknp
bucknp

On Friday Sept. 30 , 2022 was a gubernatorial “debate” in Texas. The “debate” was live on TV, just no live audience.

Friday night? First off, Friday nights this time of year mean Friday Night Lights as in Texas high school football not to mention the end of the work week for many that are thinking entertainment not sitting at home in front of the TV for a so called “debate”.

There are four other candidates on the Texas ballot that say they want to be governor including a Libertarian Party candidate. Funny thing , all four were missing in the so called “debate” , those things that kind of sort of use to give voters an idea what candidates are thinking or lying about anyway. So it was just Abbott and Beto in the “debate” and what a crummy night to “debate” (Abbott’s terms on agreeing to a “debate”).

Who the f are the other four candidates? “I don’t know” or “never heard of him/her”. I cannot fathom why the unknowns.

bucknp
bucknp

BTW, I did not know Abbott was going to “allow” the “debate” on TV. I’m an older sort that generally has my fun out on other days (or nights) than Fridays ( or Saturdays). I’ve never been one that hangs a holy grail over a Friday night…must go out every Friday night, must go out every Friday night. Personally I prefer “going out” when crowds are fewer in number. Waiting 2+ hours for a table just to eat somewhere is plumb freaking dumb IMO. That’s MO. To each his/her own on Friday nights and the waiting a table 2+ hours.

I’m not a big TV watcher. On Friday night Sept. 30 I happened to sit in front of the boob tube thinking I might find reruns of the Three Stooges or lately I believe it’s ME TV that has been showing Eastwood movies. More recently I caught Joe Kidd on ME and really enjoyed the movie.

Low and behold there was the “debate”. I listened for every bit of 15 seconds then it was time to move on cowboy, absolutely nothing to see here. Beto? God help us. Abbott, wheel chair hypocrite. Oh, and even for only 15 seconds the four uninvited invisible candidates on the “debate” stage were very impressive however. My vote on Nov. 8 will go outside the box just as it has since the 2004 “elections”.

“It’s all good.”

flash
flash

Lolbertz is slow suicide faggotry for weak minded idealists who like to pretend by putting fantasy before fact. How do I know…spent years spinning tires in this stupid ditch of despair . Might makes right. Tribe up or die.

comment image

bucknp
bucknp

All elections are rigged , even the ones hypocrites say are not.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading