RochesterFalcon Wrote:Quote:So.....you are for the government telling us how we can run our lives?
Are you an anarchist?
I don't wish to speak on behalf of RebelKev, nor do I claim to know his political leanings. But I thought this might be a good place to clear up some misconceptions of libertarian ideals as it relates vis-a-vis to "anarchy".
I'd like to copy/paste a post by a hard-core Libertarian I found on a blog (I don't consider myself a Libertarian, per se, but share in many of their ideas). It clears up issues that stem from the perception that Libertarian = Anarchy.
------
Libertarianism is about securing natural rights.
It's true. Societies change. The founders could hardly imagine our society today back in 1776. Technologies change, cultures change, the ethinic makeup of society changs. The myths we hold dear, the songs we sing, the heroes we admire, and the beauty we discover all change with the seasons of generations.
But there are certain inherent aspects of simply being human that hold true no matter how many revolutions around the sun the Earth experiences. They are constant and immutable with the passing of time. These are natural rights. They are called natural because they arise simply as a consequence of the nature of man, independent of time, political boundaries, governments, or cultures.
Most people would agree that no matter what date the calendar says, it's unjust to kill someone in cold blood. Or beat them up without provocation. Or steal their stuff. Or pee on their lawn. Natural rights are these boundaries that ought not to be crossed by anyone. They are barriers against force or fraud.
If we start from a "state of nature" like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes did in creating philosophies that directly influenced the founders, we might imagine a land without government in which two neighbors, Smith and Jones, live side by side in a neighborhood of many. On the whole, they probably get along, and respect each other. But due to the imperfect nature of man, conflicts arise. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect.)
For example, Smith might try to shoot Jones without provocation. Thus libertarians espouse the right of Jones to arm himself to protect himself from such potential advances. Perhaps though, Jones would like to get on with his life and career instead of constantly being worried about bandits like Smith trying to shoot him. So libertarians espouse the creation of a police force. The sole purpose of the police would be come to the defense of Jones against the intiation of force by people like Smith. Libertarians would be against the police initiating force against anyone; otherwise the police would be no different from Smith. Most of us can probably agree that no matter what year it is, man has a natural right not to have force initiated upon him.
Perhaps Smith and Jones and the rest of the neighborhod get along fine, with occasional conflicts that the police takes care of. However, the cannibals from Canada try to rape, pillage, and plunder the neighborhood. The police are too weak and disorganized to defend against this initiation of force by the cannibal Canadians against the residents of the neighborhood. So libertarians propose a specialized force called the military whose sole job is to deal with outside invaders. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and society needs a military to ward off invaders.) However, if the military intiates force against the neighborhood, they are no better than the cannibals no matter what uniform they wear or what flag they raise.
Perhaps Smith and Jones get along for the most part. However, Smith has a weeping willow tree on the border of his property that has grown mostly into the air above Jones's property and every fall Jones's yard is buried a foot deep in fallen leaves. Jones believes that Smith is aggressing against his property and wants Smith's tree cut down. Jones believes that since the tree is on his property, he is not aggressing against his property. They both believe in the vigorous defense of natural rights, but disagree as to whether Jones's rights are being violated. So libertarians propose courts backed with the enforcement power of police to handle such disputes. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and courts need to exist to settle disputes on the interpretation of ever-enduring natural rights.)
Perhaps Smith is a devious mofo and steals Jones's TV. Libertarians believe that procedures involving the courts and police need to exist that if can be proven that Smith did indeed defraud Jones of his TV, i.e., violate his natural rights, that Smith can be punished and Jones can be given appropriate resititution. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and is often times devious enough to defraud others; hence they hold that police and courts are needed to bring about punishment and restitution.)
So libertarians believe that in such a state of nature, imperfect man conflicts with other imperfect men. They believe that there needs to exist a monopoly called the government in order to protect man's natural rights, which include his life, his liberty, and his property. There is nothing having to do with anarchy here. It is anarchy libertarians try to protect man against.
If natural rights are protected, voluntary relationships take place. But only if natural rights are protected.
I just wanted to make that clear: To prevent the condition of anarchy, libertarians espouse a mechanism called governmentt that protect natural rights, which are everlasting as the sands of time pass through the hourglass.
