Why are many libertarians against all government?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

An example is that many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration. Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish? Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances? Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

[heavenlyboy34]

Plumb line libertarianism is anti-government by nature. Anti-statism distinguishes libertarianism from other political philosophies with a more or less "liberty" bent such as Constitutionalists. The pro-state spinoffs of libertarianism are only partly libertarian.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Plumb line libertarianism is anti-government by nature. Anti-statism distinguishes libertarianism from other political philosophies with a "liberty" bent. The pro-state spinoffs of libertarianism are only partly libertarian.

For me, I believe you can be a libertarian and support a limited, restricted government. I don't believe all government is evil, like many people here believe. They sound like anarchists.

[timosman]

Being anti-government does not require to hold nuanced positions on many issues hence many tackle this by default.

[phill4paul]

An example is that many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration. Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish? Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances? Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

You seem to believe that your belief is the belief of the people, by the people and for the people. Who the $#@! are you?

[heavenlyboy34]

For me, I believe you can be a libertarian and support a limited, restricted government. I don't believe all government is evil, like many people here believe. They sound like anarchists.

To the extent you believe in "limited government" you aren't a libertarian-you're a conservative or classical liberal or perhaps "conservatarian"(that hipster wing of the GOP nowadays), depending on your exact approach. Again, words mean things.

[oyarde]

For me, I believe you can be a libertarian and support a limited, restricted government. I don't believe all government is evil, like many people here believe. They sound like anarchists.

I did not really start out as an anarchist , first I was a Constitutional Conservative . Then I started leaning further as I recognized the futility of mankind . There are 435 members of the House , finding 218 to actually vote to uphold the Constitution ? Yeah , right .

[Jesse James]

I think you can be a libertarian without being an anarchist. A lousy libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

That being said....

If I want to sell part of my ranch to a fellow who has citizenship in Mexico, why is it you or the governments business?

Taxation is theft. A government can't run without taxation. A government can't run without first stealing money. If you try to avoid taxes you will go to jail or pay a hefty fine and if you don't do that you will be shot.

Unless you have a Christian monarchy, and that Christian does a DAMN good job of raising his sons to respect people and respect God, any kind of government will increase and increase until it is violating all kind of rights. Best to not allow a government in the first place.

[CaptUSA]

For me, I believe you can be a libertarian and support a limited, restricted government. I don't believe all government is evil, like many people here believe. They sound like anarchists.

You don't have to be an anarchist to recognize that government is evil. Whether or not you find it a necessary evil in certain circumstances is another matter.

[Jesse James]

A minarchist that hates the state is better than an anarchist that doesn't

What reason is there not to hate the state?

[tod evans]

Government is a bunch of people you don't know deciding how you're to behave and what you'll pay for.


It's all roses when they're doing what you want and all thorns when they're not, but you pay either way...

[shakey1]

What is a legitimate government?


Legitimate governments do NOT commit crimes.Two traits distinguish a legitimate government from a counterfeit one.

• Legitimate governments don’t initiate force — doing so is criminal and negates the purpose of government
• Legitimate governments only use force defensively

This means we do not currently have a legitimate government. Our current so-called government initiates force in nearly everything it does, and is therefore illegitimate.


What is The State?

The State is the negation of government.

• The State is a monopoly that initiates force under the pretense of governing
• The State compels obedience on matters far beyond the scope of legitimate government
  
• The State uses threats of violence to extort submission
• The State uses actual violence to harm people who resist its dictates

All of this is crime, not governance.
You will avoid contradictory thinking if you distinguish between government and The State.

• Governing is a service that protects your rights by only using force defensively
• But The State initiates force in nearly everything it does, and is therefore NOT a government
• This constant use of initiated force means that The State is really an organized criminal gang

There is a long habit of NOT thinking about The State in this way, but we must stop using a double standard. We must come to judge The State by the same moral principles we apply to all other human institutions.

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.or...re-government/

[presence]

There is a need for governance and justice after an individual VICTIM accuses an individual suspect of INTENTIONALLY causing actual HARM from theft or violence.

I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration.

Because that's not governance its despotic tyranny; mafia; an attempt to infringe upon the liberty of your fellow man with violently enforced edicts for your own self enrichment.

[presence]

This means we do not currently have a legitimate government.

^^^

[otherone]

many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration.

The quintessence of libertarianism is consent. "Of, for, and by" is a euphemism for majority consent, or specifically speaking, plurality consent. One of the purposes of a two-party system is to manufacture the illusion of legitimate majority representation. As others have written, the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not the "people". "People" don't have rights. Only individuals have rights. A government is illegitimate when it violates your rights in order to protect them. The manufactured will of the majority, or plurality, does not sanctify the disenfranchisement of the individual.

[BSWPaulsen]

An example is that many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration. Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish? Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances? Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

Because their morality dictates it, and it grants them the opportunity to wear their chains with a feeling of moral superiority. Moral consistency matters more than anything else to them, because they are utterly ineffectual in challenging their oppressors.

Charming fellows, if only because that lack of any will to harness power makes them harmless. Very useful to any collective that currently holds power, or aspires to power, because it ensures their reign goes relatively unchallenged.

[pcosmar]

For me, I believe you can be a libertarian and support a limited, restricted government. I don't believe all government is evil, like many people here believe. They sound like anarchists.

No.
They sound like the Founders of this Republic.

The Founders KNEW government was evil. Most had come here to escape it.
They crafted a guiding document to restrict it.

They did not think it,,or just believe it, They Knew government was evil.
It was established by evil.
They were not anarchist,, for they believed that some government was necessary. a necessary evil.. and it needed to be contained.

fast forward to today,,

Containment has Failed.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

To the extent you believe in "limited government" you aren't a libertarian

Why not?

-you're a conservative or classical liberal or perhaps "conservatarian"(that hipster wing of the GOP nowadays), depending on your exact approach. Again, words mean things.

What is the difference between a libertarian and this?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

No.
They sound like the Founders of this Republic.

Not really. Because the founders thought some government was necessary like for having a military, building roads or controlling immigrants. This is what I agree with but the libertarians I am speaking about do not believe these things are legitimate purposes of government.

The Founders KNEW government was evil. Most had come here to escape it.
They crafted a guiding document to restrict it.

They did not think it,,or just believe it, They Knew government was evil.
It was established by evil.
They were not anarchist,, for they believed that some government was necessary. a necessary evil.. and it needed to be contained.

Exactly what I believe.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The quintessence of libertarianism is consent. "Of, for, and by" is a euphemism for majority consent, or specifically speaking, plurality consent. One of the purposes of a two-party system is to manufacture the illusion of legitimate majority representation. As others have written, the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not the "people". "People" don't have rights. Only individuals have rights. A government is illegitimate when it violates your rights in order to protect them.

Good points.

The manufactured will of the majority, or plurality, does not sanctify the disenfranchisement of the individual.

But I don't understand why its wrong of me to expect the government to represent me and protect my rights. That is their purpose.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't think it's true that many libertarians are against all government. But many are against the state.

I don't see how it's possible to be a statist and a libertarian.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Because that's not governance its despotic tyranny; mafia; an attempt to infringe upon the liberty of your fellow man with violently enforced edicts for your own self enrichment.

I see your logic. However, we have a country and rights only extend to American citizens, not the whole world.

I don't like taking in immigrants because I believe they threaten my liberty because most of them are not coming here with the right moral values.

[Superfluous Man]

An example is that many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration. Why do these libertarians believe its wrong if we elect a government to restrict immigration coming here if that is what we wish? Or why is it wrong if a state government puts regulation on big business in some circumstances? Why is there a philosophy that all government is evil?

You're the same guy who said you were a free market supporting libertarian and insisted I was wrong when I said you weren't. Aren't you?

And yet here you are, proving exactly what I said.

[Brian4Liberty]

You don't have to be an anarchist to be "libertarian" and certainly not to be "Libertarian". Just look at the Libertarian POTUS candidates.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I don't think it's true that many libertarians are against all government.

I misspoke. It is just some libertarians I keep coming across on this forum. I know a lot of libertarians who are like me and only want a limited constitutional government like Ron Paul.

But many are against the state.

What is the difference?

[Superfluous Man]

I don't like taking in immigrants because I believe they threaten my liberty because most of them are not coming here with the right moral values.

Then don't let them on your property. Your say over them stops there. My property is out of your purview.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You're the same guy who said you were a free market supporting libertarian

I don't believe I ever said that. I actually don't know if I am a libertarian because I am not totally sure of the definition. I support some minimal regulation of the free market and I expect a very small government.

[undergroundrr]

many libertarians here literally seem to think its evil if I believe that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and that I get this government to do my bidding like in immigration.

I don't think it's evil for you to have any kind of idea. On the contrary, you are convinced that people with what you consider "evil" ideas should be kept out of our borders so they won't "vote away our liberty."

I think it's a really bad idea for the government to do your or my bidding at the expense of anyone. But it's not evil to have an idea.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Then don't let them on your property. Your say over them stops there. My property is out of your purview.

I don't.

But what about public property?

[Superfluous Man]

What is the difference?

The state rules people by force without their consent.

But all human organizations, including those with fully voluntary participation, have some form of governance. And if we didn't try to rule over one another via the state, we would still work out ways of governing our interactions by mutual agreement, just like churches and private clubs do.