Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General libertarians = right wing anarchists

[quote=Tatuma They are harmless ... snip ...[/quote]

This may be more accurate than you intended it to be, Tatuma. Indeed, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism is based on the moral concept of not aggressing against a non-aggressor -- and those who would do so would be held accountable. The very core of libertarianism is based on peaceful coexistence. That is not something you are opposed to, is it?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

There is no doubt in my mind that corporations, being legal constructs of the State, would need to surrender their faux personhood in a libertarian-influenced world and submit themselves to the full array of market forces without protection from the state. "Church and State" aside, I think Commerce and State should also have a wall of seperation.:-)

As to collectives, let me once again point out the distinction I have made in the past between collectivism as a foundational political philosophy and collectives in the sense of a kibbutz. Political collectivism is a foundational philosophy that subordinates the Rights of the individual to the will and interests of the state -- or, if you prefer, to the benefit of society -- if indeed the concept of individual Rights is even recognised in such a system.

This is quite different from the kibbutz type collective or an association of like-minded people who voluntarilly join and are free to voluntarilly leave at will. More power to them. As you say, that is what individiual liberty is all about. This is also a point I have made in the past, but apparently it just does not stick in the minds of some who continue to conflate political collectivism with voluntary social, business, and charitable groups and organizations.

A natural right is preeminent to the state, but it is the state that confers complex property rights upon a owner. Complex property rights include absentee ownership, legacy, copyrights, patents. There is no natural right to own these, they are gifts of the state. The property that a person directly exercises control over at work or home are natural rights of possession. No one has a natural right to possess their thoughts after placing them in the stream of public discourse. Without the state's force, property possession on the opposite end of the continent would not exist, without the use of third party contracted force, which infringed upon others' liberty.

What the state has been empowered to grant, it can also take away.

There is another reason why property rights are not elevated to primacy. It is the barricades of habeas corpus and due process of law, which restrains the State from seizing private property without cause through conviction, finding of fact for civil wrong, or just compensation if taken for public use. Without due process of law and habeas corpus, there is not one liberty that remains secure, not one. Do not attempt a flight of fantasy into the opiated dreams of rifles and sidearms in this modern world.

Without habeas corpus, the state can render humans unto itself, acting quickly and silently in the dead of night with overwhelming force, equipt with full body armor, wielding non-lethal ordnance, and subsequently, using a justification of national security, never admit to the deed. It can come on classified executive order as a flying predator selectively choosing its individual prey; a dragon belching hellfire, controlled remotely by former Nintendo Whiz kids secreted away in an underground bunker somewhere in the midst of the Nevada desert; then publish an investigative finding of unknown causes for the good of Mother, God and Country.

One at a time as relatives, friends and neighbors shake off the dissonance at the dark periphery, and return to their delusive sense of security by property. An unmuzzled leviathan will devour us all.

Then let me give you a brief overview of libertarianism, Schlack, as best I understand it.:-)

Libertarianism is fundamentally a philosophy of the relationship of the individual to the State. That relationship is predicated upon a historically recent foundational philosophy, Individualism which holds that the individual has natural Rights and those Rights may not be infringed upon by or subordinated to the state nor by or to anyone else.

Because individual liberty is the centerpiece of libertarianism, free markets and the right to the private ownership of one's property are necessary to fully exercise that liberty (How can one be truely free if one does not have the right to own the product of one's labor and to do with it as one wishes?). This is why libertarians are so often associated with and support the concept of free markets.

In a libertarian-influenced society, one cannot aggress against a non-aggressor. If one does so, one is held accountable. Nor can one violate the property rights of another lest he be make to reimburse or in some other way compensate the violated party.

The goal of libertarianism is for one to peacefully coexist with others while engaging in voluntary exchange, association, and action through the full and unfettered exercise of one's natural Rights (unfettered in the sense that they extend only to the point where they would otherwise violate the Rights of another). Charity, care, and concern for others would be on a genuinely voluntary basis. The primary function of a government would be to secure the pre-exsiting Rights of the individual and to be limited in its powers of intrusion into the lives of citizens.

The "extreme" libertarianism you referred to would be a total absence of the state -- as is advocated by anarcho-capitalists. If you wish to read about it Hans Hoope (still alive) and Murray Rothbard (dead) came to accept this viewpoint and are intellectually capable of defending as well as explaining it.

Three of the more common types of disinformation directed at libertarians:

1. libertarians are better described as libertine.

The former is restricted by moral distinctions while the latter is not.

2. libertarians are all about property.

Private ownership of property and property rights are basic to individual liberty and freedon, so it is natural that libertarians should place a high value on property-related Rights.

3. libertarians are all out for themselves, and see themselves as "rugged individualists".

libertarians are often very interactive with others, may be quite caring of and helpful toward others, form associations of a voluntary social, business, religious, and even political nature.

That is just a rough sketch, Schlack, but I can provide a number of sources for reading material on libertarian thought if you would like to actually learn something of it.
Yours,
Issodhos

Thanks Iss, this is exactly the kind of thing i was looking for, depsite the provocative title of the thread!

It was a genuine motive of enquiry rather than an attempt to bash someones political philosphy based on pre-conceptions.

could you send on those links/sources please?

I can agree with a most of what you have said, but im not convinced that such a philosophy by itself is the basis for a functioning society.

could you clarify a couple of further things please?

Where do these natural rights come from? from studies of french and american revolutionary writings, i was under the impression that rather than being "natural" as such they were rights agreed upon by a relatively small number of people - based on various philosphers and streams of enlightenment thought. so rather than being natural such rights were indeed a construction.

private property being the basis for liberty - is it the entire basis or forms just part of it? Free markets, as far as i ca n see have a tendency towards the formation of monopolies. surely such power concentrated in indivduals, or a small set of corporations is a direct threat to individual liberty. If the state, or the ruls dont allow any "agress" or co-ercive measures how are such concentrations of power, such a concentration of a threat to the property definition of liberty, be avoided/prevented?

Voluntary exchange: here im again a little unclear. if a state creates the tax rules for instance, and the people have directly voted (not all of course but a majority) for their representatives to create said rules, wouldnt that fulfil the voluntary aspect? i know some dont have their say, tyranny of the majority but we also have to fit the flights of philosophy into a workable society.

in fact i see my tax as fairly voluntary, i sometimes disagree on payday of course, an amount paid to provide services and infrastructure to a states citizens and residents. Ground rent so to speak. is it not therefore apt for all (or those who can without being driven into penury) to pay for the services provided by state, whose basis for spending it is who they elect?

again this is an exploration, not an attack. these are some of the "holes" in my knowledge. as far as i can see such a philosphy on its own does not suffice for a functioning state/society. thats not to say the ideas and concepts are not relevant and should not be incorporated - and indeed they alrady are!

I would recommend the von Mises site as a central point from which you can get a handle on libertarian thought as well as the theories behind what is called the Austrian School of Economics.

This is part of the von Mises site and has available not only a wide range of authors and articles but also books that can be downloaded free of charge. One of the outstanding books that can be downloaded is "Human Action".

The Lysander Spooner site is also well worth a visit. You may wish to go here and scroll down to "No Treason No. II the US Constitution" for an interesting read. Another would be "Vices are not crimes" which can be accessed in this article by Rothbard.

As to your questions, I am a bit tired but since I have addressed these issues in other threads in this forum I will paste them (with perhaps a bit of tuning for this thead).


The formulating and formalizing of the political philosophy of Individualism based on the theory of natural Rights which were derived from the study of the nature of man emerged during the Enlightenment beginning in the 17th century. This is why I have referred to the philosophy of Individualism as the new kid on the block.

The concept of Man’s natural Rights (including property Rights) flow from Man’s rational mind as easily and as naturally as water from an artesian well. The man who builds a barn knows naturally that it is morally his to do with as he pleases. A man who exchanges something of value for the barn another man built knows naturally that it is morally his to do with as he pleases. So too does a man who exchanges something of value for a business. He knows naturally that it is his to do with as he so desires.

How much more difficult it is to convince a man that what he creates or obtains is not really his. To dispossess him of such a natural thought a complex and convoluted theory of “non-ownership” and “fallacy of property” must be developed and then, through an un-natural and tortured reification, inculcated into his worldview.

In terms of "natural Rights" "natural" refers to the nature of man -- not other animals, or how other animals organize, act, or react, nor even how man reacts to nature's forces. For example, it is the nature of man to be intellectually inquisitive, gregarious, and communicative of ideas. This being a part of the integral nature of man, he must be free to express himself and his ideas to others. Hence the natural basis for Freedom of Speech (from within man).




There are just too many different and rather undefined issues in this question for me to be sure how or what to address, Schlack, but I will say that if by "private propery" (I have to assume you mean property Rights) you are including the ownership of one's person by oneself, then it would indeed be the foundation of liberty -- much to King John's chagrin on that meadow at Runnymede on that long ago day in 1215.:-)


Voluntary exchange simply refers to an exchange of goods or services between private owners who are uncoerced and free to negotiate whatever terms the two find satisfactory or acceptable. It has nothing to do with taxation.
Yours,
Issodhos

Rather than becoming entangled with philosophical arguments that are anchored upon different articles of faith which every human has about The Force of their Creation, I tend to describe Natural Rights from two somewhat different perspectives which are grounded on predicates that can be accepted as material by a much larger audience. When describing Natural Rights as they apply to the US Government, they should be defined as those rights which the Nation's Founders felt were without the proper purview of the state. When discussing Natural rights without being limited by the US Constitution, I define them as rights in a government manifest of by and for the people that could not be ceded to the state and remain a free form of government. Both perspectives share an almost identical set of elements.

There is still a great space for disagreement in both perspectives, but they remove the unprovable differences in faith about origins from being a part of it. It keeps it on the earthly plane.


As I have stated within this thread, there is a disagreement as to the extent that the natural right to private property exists in a free society. Issodos is very much aligned with the Austrian Theorists from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which propose that land should not be owned by the state and that private property ownership of all kinds is a sacrosanct right of individuals in a free society. This is not an argument that can be defended by the definition of Natural Rights derived from a Constitutional perspective.

The word property is found four times in the U.S. Constitution.

One: Article IV; Section 3; Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

That pretty much destroys the argument that the state has no natural right to possess land, as this clause says that Congress has the power to control land owned by the federal Government. This clause would have no meaning if the state did not posses the right to be a landholder.

Two & Three: The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment - No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is not a grant of private property ownership which is preeminent to the state, it is instead a limited grant that bars the state from taking private property without a prior process which adhered to due process of law. It is due process of law which is elevated to primacy here, not private property ownership.

Four: The Privileges or Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again this does not infer a natural right to private property ownership, it instead binds the individual states to the same rules the Federal Government must adhere to before taking private property, and says that these rules must be applied equally in all instances of their use.

Additionally; parts of Article I; Section 8 of the Constitution need be considered:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power...

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 7 clearly empowers the Federal Government to be a landholder. Clause 8 gives Congress the power to create classes of private property ownership: those of patents and copyrights. These two are obviously not natural rights, because of this clause.

Private Property ownership is a necessary part of a free state, and this is why there were specific hurdles placed in the way of the government's intentions to take private property, but this ownership is not an absolute. Even the Natural Rights philosophers held a limited view as to what exactly the natural rights to property ownership entailed, and that extended only to the property within the sphere of the individual's immediate reach which was being directly employed for use. All else is derived by Grants from the State.

This matters a great deal presently within the Libertarian Party, as the Von Mises theorists argue that it is the natural Right to Possess Private Property, absent a State's right to be a landholder where they justify their anti-immigrant viewpoint as being a libertarian concept, yet the Libertarian Party's Platform states that immigration is a right of humans that the State cannot impair other than to insure that those desiring to enter into it are not afflicted with a dangerously infectious disease or are criminals. The Von Mises theorists claim that since all land is rightfully only possessed by private individuals, it is the private landholders that have the right to decide who is allowed to immigrate. They claim that a right to possess property trumps a human's right to seek out a place to live free of tyranny, and filled with a better prospect for a happy life.

The concept defames me, when it is associated as being a proper belief held by The Friends of Liberty. It is devotion to personal possessions at the expense of the Natural Rights of Humanity.

As Thomas Paine said "Government is a necessary evil" and as such should be as small as possible.

The curious thing is, Senator, on that point there is agreement on the left as well. It is just on the left you will more likely hear the issue being government infringing upon liberty rather than infringing upon property. To me, this is the single point separating the two poles as well as unifying them.

The necessity of government changes with circumstances. Paine had the option of moving out of the reach of government. He could move to the Indian lands and take his chances. As settlers moved west, they often saw a need for MORE government to protect them from Indians.

Consider for a moment the settling of the West. Here we have a case where people settled a land with No government whatsoever. These people lived in an idyllic world... NO GOVERNMENT. And yet they voted to become part of the united states. They voted to have government imposed upon them.

I observe that there are examples countries with large government... where the people are happy and prosperous.

There are also examples of countries with minimal (or at least less) government... where people are less prosperous and happy.

IMO the evil of the government is not directly proportional to it's size.