Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
(Post 18852176)
I'm confused. What is the philosophy without the party? Isn't it the party that defined it? Have they changed or you disagree with the Libertarian Party on a view or views?
|
The philosophy is a lot older than the party. It's also important to note that not all libertarians agree on everything. A popular
joke among libertarians used to be that their favorite past time was "arguing amongst themselves about who was right". :)
The word libertarian implies that the focus is on liberty, freedom,... On what grounds different types of libertarians build their philosophy differs a lot.
Some use a utilitarian approach. They try to figure out what the most efficient way is to 'organize' a society and reach the conclusion that one with no government intervention in people's lives is the most efficient. Examples would be Ludwig von Mises and David Friedman. Mises used praxeology to show that a free market was the most efficient way to organize an economy and he accepted the existence of a 'government' as a necessary evil to protect private property rights. So Mises was a minarchist. Friedman is an anarchist. Friedman argues that even services like protection of private property (police, law,... the services Mises put the government in charge of) can be provided by the free market at a price that is lower than that of the government and at level of efficiency that is higher than that of the government.
Others use a deontological approach. They argue that every human being has certain inalienable rights and that violating those rights is always immoral and unethical. Once again, different groups of libertarians base their argument for these rights on different grounds:
- Natural Rights. People like Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner fit in this category.
- God given Rights. Think the Declaration Of Independence: ("We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men... are bestowed upon by their creator with certain inalienable rights...")
- Rational rights. The Argumentation Ethics used by Hans Hermann Hoppe or the Estoppel theory (estoppel = a legal doctrine that stops you from doing things or basing your evidence on things that contradict what you have already said or done.) used by Stephan Kinsella are good examples of this.
Interestingly, no matter if they use a natural rights, god given rights or rational rights approach, these deontological libertarians all arrive at the same point: selfownership.
According to them every human being owns his own body. They then all have different ways to justify people's right to acquire private property. One example of this would be John Locke's Theory Of Acquisition. Once they've established the right to selfownership and the right to acquire property, they logically arrive at what libertarians call the Non-Aggression Principle (Sometimes called the Non-Aggression Axiom by the ones using a rational rights or more consequentialist approach).
Non-Aggression Principle: every human being is free to do with his body and property whatever he wants as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property.
If you do cause damage to another human's property, that's considered an act of aggression and that human being has the right to defend himself and his property.
Literally 1000s of articles, papers and books have been written about how based on this Non-Aggression Principle, problems can be solved, conflicts can be avoided and entire legal systems can be constructed. Examples: Walter Block (on private roads, pollution,...), Hans Hermann Hope (National defense), Daniel D'Amico (punishment and retribution), Wendy Mcelroy (feminism),...
One example before I answer your question:
We all value our right to free speech. But what is that right to free speech? Do you have that right because some government gave it to you? Do you have that right because someone long ago took a piece of paper and wrote "I give you the right to free speech"?
The deontological libertarian answer would be: You have no "separate right to free speech". The right to free speech is nothing more than the right to use your own property. It's the right to use your own tongue and vocal cords to produce the words you want to produce. It's the right to use your own pen, ink and paper to write what you want to write.
Now, why do I as a deontological libertarian not identify with a political party? Because I don't vote. I try to live my life the best way possible. I try not to commit acts of aggression. I don't commit murder, I don't steal, I don't rape.... I make a living by selling goods and services other people value and are willing to give something in exchange for. I do not wish to enforce my will onto others. I do not vote because then I would be giving an organization the ok to force their will onto others in my name.
