What Libertarianism Is

[Conza88]

One of the best articles I've ever read. Highly recommended to help clarify what sets libertarianism apart.

What Libertarianism Is
by Stephan Kinsella

Property, Rights, and Liberty

Libertarians tend to agree on a wide array of policies and principles. Nonetheless, it is not easy to find consensus on what libertarianism's defining characteristic is, or on what distinguishes it from other political theories and systems. Various formulations abound. It is said that libertarianism is about individual rights, property rights,[1] the free market, capitalism, justice, or the nonaggression principle. Not just any of these will do, however. Capitalism and the free market describe the catallactic conditions that arise or are permitted in a libertarian society, but do not encompass other aspects of libertarianism. And individual rights, justice, and aggression collapse into property rights. As Murray Rothbard explained, individual rights are property rights.[2] And justice is just giving someone his due, which depends on what his rights are.[3]


..... cont.

[Conza88]

[CaseyJones]

moved to philosophy

[bwlibertyman]

Looks like casey rented a uhaul for conza today. I listened to this speech. It's pretty decent. I wish he would have talked about owning ideas though. That's where the big argument comes. Can you or can't you?

[Seraphim]

NO. Ideas cannot be owned. The specifics of a FINISHED PRODUCT can be owned. Ideas cannot be.

Looks like casey rented a uhaul for conza today. I listened to this speech. It's pretty decent. I wish he would have talked about owning ideas though. That's where the big argument comes. Can you or can't you?

[Wesker1982]

I wish he would have talked about owning ideas though. That's where the big argument comes. Can you or can't you?

He actually has quite a bit to say about this

http://mises.org/media/category/226/...ctual-Property verrry goood!

[heavenlyboy34]

He actually has quite a bit to say about this

http://mises.org/media/category/226/...ctual-Property verrry goood!

+a bunch

[heavenlyboy34]

NO. Ideas cannot be owned. The specifics of a FINISHED PRODUCT can be owned. Ideas cannot be.

qft!

[bwlibertyman]

I agree that ideas cannot be owned but he omitted it from this otherwise good speech.

[Wesker1982]

Kinsella is really good

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.- Stephan Kinsella

What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

[Conza88]

Not many on this forum seem to know what it is.

[ProIndividual]

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this

[Conza88]

Self-ownership people.. it's not a hard concept to understand.

[Lisle16]

My definition:

Libertarianism is an uncompromising belief in economic freedom, political liberty, and individual rights.

[Conza88]

My definition:

Libertarianism is an uncompromising belief in economic freedom, political liberty, and individual rights.

Economic freedom & political liberty are only possible if individual rights are respected.

[Sola_Fide]

Self-ownership people.. it's not a hard concept to understand.

Self-ownership does not imply any political theory.

[Conza88]

Self-ownership does not imply any political theory.

Yes it does. See argumentation ethics thread... and see your continued inability to actually engage in the OP and address the points.

Keep on avoiding; keep on dodging.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes it does. See argumentation ethics thread... and see your continued inability to actually engage in the OP and address the points.

Keep on avoiding; keep on dodging.

No, it doesn't. Self-ownership could be the a priori assumption in all of our reasoning and action, but it still does not imply that it is right.

[havoc37]

Or if you want to know what libertarianism is, just look at this: http://www.lp.org/platform

[abolitionist]

Libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force is immoral. Full Stop. That's it. Everything else follows from that, including liberty, etc.

It is important to keep a very clear definition of what libertarianism is so that we have a common basis for discussion. The definition I just gave is not my definition, it is not a made up one, it is the one given by the founders of the modern libertarian movement who cooped that word to mean what was previously known as "liberal" or "classical liberal" or "reason".

A pledge in this belief-- that the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral-- was required of all members of the Libertarian Party for many years.

It is the definition of libertarianism . IF you reject it, that's fine, just don't call yourself a libertarian.

[Conza88]

No, it doesn't. Self-ownership could be the a priori assumption in all of our reasoning and action, but it still does not imply that it is right.

When it is properly logically deduced, it is. You cannot deny it, without affirming it... as such it reaches the status of an axiom.

Thanks for the continued bumps.

[Sola_Fide]

When it is properly logically deduced, it is. You cannot deny it, without affirming it... as such it reaches the status of an axiom.

Thanks for the continued bumps.

Okay, let's try to connect the dots here:

It is impossible to deny self-ownership without affirming it--------------------->therefore, it is wrong to aggress against others?

Why? Where do you get the prescription from the premise? You don't.

As I said, it is possible that self-ownership could be axiomatic, but that in no way implies, from the premises, that it is unethical to inhibit other's ownership. The mere presupposition of something does not make it ethical.

[Sola_Fide]

Conza,

Do you realize how absurd it is to say engaging in argumentation proves people's self ownership? Do slaves engage in argumentation?

There is no ontological (what is) proof of libertarianism because libertarianism is in no way an ontological fact. Look around you man.

I'm sorry, but this argumentation is not sound.

[Conza88]

Okay, let's try to connect the dots here:

It is impossible to deny self-ownership without affirming it--------------------->therefore, it is wrong to aggress against others?

Why? Where do you get the prescription from the premise? You don't.

As I said, it is possible that self-ownership could be axiomatic, but that in no way implies, from the premises, that it is unethical to inhibit other's ownership. The mere presupposition of something does not make it ethical.

Let's connect the dots... THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARGUMENT ENTAILS.

IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ THE CHIEF SOURCE / ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHICH PUTS FORWARD THE ARGUMENT YOU WOULD KNOW THIS...

And yet you continue to bask in all your ignorant 'glory'. Pathetic. I address your delusions here...here (again).

[Revolution9]

Libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force is immoral. Full Stop. That's it. Everything else follows from that, including liberty, etc.

It is important to keep a very clear definition of what libertarianism is so that we have a common basis for discussion. The definition I just gave is not my definition, it is not a made up one, it is the one given by the founders of the modern libertarian movement who cooped that word to mean what was previously known as "liberal" or "classical liberal" or "reason".

A pledge in this belief-- that the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral-- was required of all members of the Libertarian Party for many years.

It is the definition of libertarianism . IF you reject it, that's fine, just don't call yourself a libertarian.

Conza and that crew are full of hot air and slippery definitions. This is the correct definition.

Rev9

[Conza88]

Conza and that crew are full of hot air and slippery definitions. This is the correct definition.

... do you actually want to read the OP, especially the first few paragraphs.. and tell me what is wrong with it? Aye?

I accept in the liberty movement anyone who supports the NAP, i.e a big tent. War is not part of that tent. You can call yourself a libertarian, but if you're a consequentalist, utilitarian etc... you're wrong and your 'philosophy' is not grounded properly. That however, generally doesn't mean you can't help bring people into the fold..

[robert68]

No, it doesn't. Self-ownership could be the a priori assumption in all of our reasoning and action, but it still does not imply that it is right.

If one doesn't have ownership (the right to control) their body, who or what does?

[Sola_Fide]

If one shouldn’t have ownership of their body, who or what should?

I have made a case for ownership in other threads, and it would be along the lines of how Hans Sennholz made it.

I am just not insane enough to say that a slave has ontological self-ownership by the fact that he engages in argumentation. AE has a huge problem with the naturalistic fallacy. The refutations to AE have been out there for a long time.

[robert68]

I have made a case for ownership in other threads, and it would be along the lines of how Hans Sennholz made it.

Self ownership or just ownership of external scarce resources?

[Sola_Fide]

Self ownership or just ownership of external scarce resources?

Both.

"The market order or capitalism finds its answers in the Judeo-Christian code of morality. Private ownership in production is squarely based on the Ten Commandments. It obviously rests on the Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal. The private- ownership system also builds on the solid foundation of the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill, which includes every form of coercion and violence....

To freely exchange goods and services, the contracting parties must not deceive each other. They must not bear false witness, which is the Ninth Commandment of the Decalogue."

-Hans Sennholz

Christianity has a self-contained theory of temporal self-ownership and non-aggression. It has everything needed for a voluntary society that is free.