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

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!