# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Lew Rockwell: What Libertarianism Is, and Isn't

## cajuncocoa

> The explosive growth in the number of converts to libertarianism since Ron Paul first ran for president is one of the most exciting developments of my life. But Id like to issue a note of caution.
> 
> There are several ways a young libertarian can distinguish himself. He can be an effective communicator of libertarian ideas as a writer or speaker. He can employ his unique talents  as an artist, animator, interviewer, or whatever  to convey the libertarian message in new and compelling ways. He can become a specialist in some area of scholarly inquiry relevant to libertarianism. Or he can add to the edifice of libertarian thought by solving a longstanding problem, critically reexamining an old question, or applying libertarian theory to new areas as technology develops and civilization evolves.
> 
> I can think of people who fit all these descriptions. What distinguishes them all is that they worked very hard to establish their well-deserved niche within the community of libertarian thinkers.
> 
> By contrast, people might establish niches for themselves by devising their own peculiar version of libertarianism, and claiming that their discovery alone is the real thing. Not only is this method easier than the ones I described above, but it also allows the creator the pleasure of rendering sanctimonious judgment on those benighted souls who cling to plain old libertarianism, with no labels, no caveats, and no apologies.
> 
> Might we gain the sympathy of the left by parroting their language of egalitarianism and loudly proclaiming our allegiance to the moral strictures of the state? It is not absolutely impossible, I suppose. But I consider it far more likely that the left will be amused at such transparent attempts at ingratiation, and go on viewing libertarians with the same contempt as before.
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/l...m-is-and-isnt/

----------


## wizardwatson

Isn't Rockwell kind of contradicting himself?

First he quotes Rothbard saying "There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory."  Then at the end "Libertarianism, in other words, in its pure and undiluted form, is intellectually rigorous, morally consistent, and altogether exciting and thrilling."

So the whole morality rests upon "imperative of non-violation of rights."

I can only assume either Rockwell or Rothbard are ignorant or dishonest if their position is that libertarianism has no "general moral theory".

In fact the general moral theory is clearly laid out in Ethics of Liberty wherein it defines violent defense of property and violent retribution for successful violations of said property to be moral and ethical and in fact is the very mechanism by which liberty flourishes and is secured.

Property rights secured by violence IS a moral position. And to say that it isn't invalidates all the tedious work Rothbard did in describing how this violent defense is in accordance with "natural law" and how a sensible man, a "reasonable" man couldn't possibly argue against it (though kudos to him for at least name-dropping a Tolstoyan as someone who is likely to challenge his eye for an eye beliefs).

Perhaps Rockwell and Rothbard really mean that libertarianism has no general Christian morality. Which I would definitely agree with since retributive aggression is prohibited there quite clearly.

If you really believe in the Christian position you can't endorse a philosophy rooted in violence. If you do you are not following non-violence, you just desire that organized violence be organized differently.

What I find ironic about the whole affair is that courts and punishment are all about moral culpability and the libertarians think they have it all ironed out and then Rockwell here claims that "we have no general moral position, but that position is consistent"

Well, thank the lord it's consistent, we wouldn't want the libertarians to be making up new rules for the flogging threshhold every day. Or what market based algorithm they use to determine the reasonable doubt standard before they have murder people, gouge out eyeballs and cut off hands (read ethics if you think I'm being dramatic, Rothbard wasn't exactly opposed to mutilation as punishment if the crime was similar - and in fact thinks the criminal should get more than they dished out).

Anyway, no one ever seems to talk about the problem of Christians believing in retributive punishment, and yet half of people in this movement claim to be Christians and simultaneously Rothbardian-Rockwellian libertarians.

Dear Lord! If only we had a Christian head on top of every neck adorned with a crucifix!

If you want my advice abandon all these old school gatekeeper do-nothings. This started as the rEVOLolution. Freedom from violence. Instead we've latched on to the coat tails of those intellectuals riding on RP's coat tails and sewn violence to our brains in the process by way of this dishonest discourse that would teach us that violence organized by man is in accordance with "natural law".

I've been wanting to say this for a while. We started and genuinely wanted to be the movement of peace and right at the core of the movement now is a philosophy espoused by people who have gone to considerable lengths to justify the core function we all originally disagreed with about government in the first place.

We talk of peace, and tolerance, and compassion, to which the libertarian philosophy pays no heed. And what is it the Christians and libertarians unite on? Seems to simply be the "abuse" of government power. Once that's taken care of the libertarians will be happy but what about the Christians? I suppose the libertarians will thank them for their effort and boot them out, and the tip-toe Christians will have to find some other adventure to take the place of legitimate work.

Seems to me though both supposed adherents are no different at the core. Seems they just want a government that is more efficient and directed at putting people to death, making them work off their contractual debt, and driving the immoral core of man out of him with a sword.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Isn't Rockwell kind of contradicting himself?
> 
> First he quotes Rothbard saying "There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory." Then at the end "Libertarianism, in other words, in its pure and undiluted form, is intellectually rigorous, morally consistent, and altogether exciting and thrilling."
> 
> So the whole morality rests upon "imperative of non-violation of rights."
> 
> I can only assume either Rockwell or Rothbard are ignorant or dishonest if their position is that libertarianism has no "general moral theory".
> 
> In fact the general moral theory is clearly laid out in Ethics of Liberty wherein it defines violent defense of property and violent retribution for successful violations of said property to be moral and ethical and in fact is the very mechanism by which liberty flourishes and is secured.
> ...





> *Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else.* It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about race or nationality. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied.
> 
> Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian qua libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.
> 
> Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have libertarian.


It all seems pretty clear to me.

----------


## Cabal

> I can only assume either Rockwell or Rothbard are ignorant or dishonest if their position is that libertarianism has no "general moral theory".


Rothbard is talking about personal preferences/values (that do not necessarily extend from, or are not necessarily associated with the moral theory that is the bedrock of libertarianism) being presented as moral principles that are necessary to liberty. In other words, Rothbard and Rockwell are suggesting that libertarianism doesn't necessarily have anything to say beyond what it necessarily says. Rockwell, in particular, is thus suggesting that, as an ideology, libertarianism shouldn't be redefined by this (largely left) wing of libertarianism that is currently trying to redefine it to mean something that doesn't necessarily follow from it's core.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Libertarianism, at least IMO, is not a complete system of morality.  There are certain moral propositions which all libertarians agree on, but others that they do not.  I was talking to a fellow Christian about this recently and I explained it this way (this is not word for word):

Consider the proposition "homosexuality is immoral".  What is the libertarian position on this statement?  There is none.  Now, we (as in, me and the person I was talking to) would agree with the statement.  Some individual libertarians would agree with it while others weren't.  But the question goes beyond libertarianism, and libertarianism is not philosophically concerned with such statements.

Libertarianism is a partial moral theory, but not a complete one.  Specifically, its a moral theory with regards to the right to use violence, particularly in a social context.  It does not answer the question of whether certain non-violent actions are right or wrong, nor does it answer the question of whether or not the legal right to use defensive violence should be relinqiushed in a given situation, these questions are important to individual libertarians but outside the realm of libertarianism.







Also, as this individual pointed out correctly, everyone wants to "enforce morality" unless they are total pacifists.  So to say that "libertarians (or whoever) are against enforcing morality" is ridiculous and is not a valid way of defending one's position.  Everyone wants to enforce some morality unless they want no laws at all.  Libertarianism deliberately and (I feel) for very good reasons limits the corpus of those immoralities that can be punished to those immoralities which are aggressive in nature, but this is not the same thing as saying we don't want to enforce any morality at all.  And enforcing laws against aggression does necessarily imply that at least in most cases such aggression is not moral.

----------


## fisharmor

I read through Jeff Tucker's diatribe about whatever it is that happened in their circle, and made it through just enough of Rockwell's piece here to figure out he was probably moved to write on the same event.
Someone pissed off a bunch of regulars, apparently, and I'm not sure why I should invest time and energy examining the finer points of the libertarian movement as a result.

----------


## wizardwatson

> It all seems pretty clear to me.





> Rothbard is talking about personal preferences/values (that do not necessarily extend from, or are not necessarily associated with the moral theory that is the bedrock of libertarianism) being presented as moral principles that are necessary to liberty. In other words, Rothbard and Rockwell are suggesting that libertarianism doesn't necessarily have anything to say beyond what it necessarily says. Rockwell, in particular, is thus suggesting that, as an ideology, libertarianism shouldn't be redefined by this (largely left) wing of libertarianism that is currently trying to redefine it to mean something that doesn't necessarily follow from it's core.


Exactly. You are both right. This is why I like discussion.

So basically Rockwell is saying that libertarianism is morally agnostic outside of its "bedrock" moral principle of retributive violence. It does not bend to include any other moral principle nor to abandon it's own adherence to retributive violence.

So a Christian who by definition is commanded to refrain from such activity is on notice that they shall not sway the libertarian center.  Which should be fine since he or she should never be part of it in the first place.

And the bedrock moral position isn't non-aggression. That violence against criminals is ethical is the bedrock moral position.

Non-aggression is not the principle.  Does libertarianism say you get a cookie for being non-aggressive?  No, Rothbard explicitly indicates in his book that defending your property by violence is what creates liberty.  He claims those who do not work against it.

The moral bedrock principle of libertarianism is old testament "eye for an eye".  And if we follow Rothbards lines in Ethics it's "2 eyes for an eye".

It's revenge and government by fear parading itself as reason and truth.

Ultimately I only want to make this point.  Apologists feel free to tell me "that's not what they meant".

----------


## Cabal

> I read through Jeff Tucker's diatribe about whatever it is that happened in their circle, and made it through just enough of Rockwell's piece here to figure out he was probably moved to write on the same event.
> Someone pissed off a bunch of regulars, apparently, and I'm not sure why I should invest time and energy examining the finer points of the libertarian movement as a result.


This all basically started with a leftist contingent trying to divide libertarianism into "thick" vs. "thin."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So a Christian who by definition is commanded to refrain from such activity is on notice that they shall not sway the libertarian center. Which should be fine since he or she should never be part of it in the first place.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  Are you asserting that Christians cannot be libertarians?  Because if so, you're doing the very thing that Rockwell is opposing.  

Not only would I argue that Christians CAN be libertarians, I would argue that they SHOULD be libertarians IF being a libertarian is defined as an opposition to aggression in a social context.  Of course, a Christian cannot limit his moral boundaries to the NAP, every Christian certainly believes in moral principles that are outside of the libertarian NAP, but no Christian should oppose the NAP.

----------


## Cabal

> So basically Rockwell is saying that libertarianism is morally agnostic outside of its "bedrock" moral principle of retributive violence. It does not bend to include any other moral principle nor to abandon it's own adherence to retributive violence.


Replace "retributive violence" with "property rights" (for the sake of brevity) and your statement would be accurate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Replace "retributive violence" with "property rights" (for the sake of brevity) and your statement would be accurate.


Yes.  Libertarianism as such doesn't really say anything about when retributive violence is justified, does it?

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  Are you asserting that Christians cannot be libertarians?  Because if so, you're doing the very thing that Rockwell is opposing.  
> 
> Not only would I argue that Christians CAN be libertarians, I would argue that they SHOULD be libertarians IF being a libertarian is defined as an opposition to aggression in a social context.  Of course, a Christian cannot limit his moral boundaries to the NAP, every Christian certainly believes in moral principles that are outside of the libertarian NAP, but no Christian should oppose the NAP.


Generally speaking I avoid making points about things that don't have anything to do with anything.

I'm not asserting that so-called Christians and libertarians can't co-mingle. I'm asserting that if Rothbard's delineation of property rights is the standard and philosophical core of libertarianism then Christians are commanded to do pretty much the exact opposite.  Of course I state this knowing that a libertarian who understands the roots of his libertarian philosophy and a Christian who understands the Christian standard are exceedingly-perhaps not equally-rare.

And "IF", as you say, it's defined as "opposition to aggression in a social context" then I am in exact opposition to you in saying that they SHOULD NOT. A Christian does not have "moral principles" in such a way that he can gather them over time and weigh them against this or that. He or she is COMMANDED to love, to turn the other cheek and to not resist evil. You can certainly argue against this with what Rothbard calls "lifeboat situations" but if we are to speak in "the social context", which is to say in the realm of social policy then he or she most definitely could not construe that he should give his money to a private enforcement entity to put his fellow man in prison.

When everyone says "opposition in the social context" they really mean "paying someone to be violent on your behalf" (more on euphimisms below). It is certainly a Christian duty to rebuke your neighbor and put him on the right path. If you feel so and so is a danger perhaps he needs to be contained, perhaps an wrong-doer even died or was killed in a land filled with Christian leaders, but it wouldn't be policy, it would be tragedy, whereas in libertarian society it is called justice.




> Replace "retributive violence" with "property rights" (for the sake of brevity) and your statement would be accurate.


Intellectuals often employ euphimisms in order to smooth over the foundational ideas they know would cause offense and a second look if phrased along more honest lines.




> Yes.  Libertarianism as such doesn't really say anything about when retributive violence is justified, does it?


I don't know how long you've been in the world FF but my years have taught me that 99% of what people count as their own beliefs they've never read or understood completely enough to make an informed decision as to whether it is useful or accurate.

Rothbard is the property rights guru everyone puts on a pedestal.  The ENTIRE POINT of Ethics of Liberty is to justify retributive violence ethically and morally. That's why it's called "Ethics of Liberty" and not "The theory of justifiable aggression and how it promotes a more rational society."  It is PRECISELY to posit that securing rights by violence is ethical and moral. It isn't a mystery I'm divining he clearly states it in the book.

Not only am I saying it isn't moral from a Christian standpoint I'm also saying that Rothbard clearly did not use "reason" which he tries so hard to appear to be proficient at to arrive at the conclusion that one has a right "to keep" his property.

I can point out for you, if you'd like the precise point at which Rothbard abandons reason.

The entire point of Ethics is not the reasoning that you don't have the right to criminally infringe on the rights of someone who has done nothing to you.  That is a truism that he acknowledges in chapter 4 when he explains what "rights" are.  He is trying to establish a second right, a "moral right" to violent defense of property.  All he has established up until chapter 12 is that what "you cannot do to someone" can be used as an outline of a kind of absolute self ownership of a person's life and property. This would include your life, your house, your car, your investments, and even the orange tree in your beach house in Jamaica.  So where and how will does he establish this moral right to violent defense?  He does it all in this first paragraph of chapter 12:

"IF EVERY MAN HAS the absolute right to his justly-held property it
then follows that he has the right tokeep that property--to defend it
by violence against violent invasion."

That is the sentence in Ethics that made me realize that Rothbard brought nothing new to the table (including intellectual dishonesty). 

Because no man has a right to attack, you have a right to attack him if he breaks this rule?  "It then follows" does it?

This is Rothbard's leap of faith. "It then follows". It most certainly does not follow. That is the entire moral question is it not? Does man have a right to judge his fellow man? Not defend, no. Rothbard tries to slip that in the above sentence but he's appealing by "defending against violent invasion" to the same "lifeboat situation" rhetoric that he rails against in earlier chapters. We are talking about punishment and retribution, he also makes no secret of that if you read it (just read the chapter on "punishment and proportionality").  

So in his misguided attempt to show violent retribution as "ethical" he actually jumps over the real question as though it were a truism! "It then follows". As if the readers of the book already agreed that violent defense is moral! Then why write the book! I'll tell you why. The same reason all intellectuals write books about retarded theories. So other intellectuals have a reference to remind them about what they all agree on. The book is as much backed by reason as an FRN is backed by gold.

Rothbard doesn't believe in God but he believes in evil (also something he admits in the book). His solution to evil is to kill it with violence. Simple as that. Nothing new, nothing special. Just an elaborate defense of state violence as long as the "state" is property based on the homesteading principle.

Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe, Paul, etc.  None of these people are better morally or in the realm of problem solving than anyone else on these forums. Making them so in our minds justs slows everything down and everyone discusses intellectual minutia instead of solving problems.

But the question of violence and evil and what to do about it isn't minutia. It is the whole ball of wax. And everyone buying into libertarianism, if it be based on what Rothbard says it is and they also call themselves Christian, is on the wrong side of the argument or they are simply ignorant of what their own position is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Generally speaking I avoid making points about things that don't have anything to do with anything.
> 
> I'm not asserting that so-called Christians and libertarians can't co-mingle. I'm asserting that if Rothbard's delineation of property rights is the standard and philosophical core of libertarianism then Christians are commanded to do pretty much the exact opposite.  Of course I state this knowing that a libertarian who understands the roots of his libertarian philosophy and a Christian who understands the Christian standard are exceedingly-perhaps not equally-rare.
> 
> And "IF", as you say, it's defined as "opposition to aggression in a social context" then I am in exact opposition to you in saying that they SHOULD NOT. A Christian does not have "moral principles" in such a way that he can gather them over time and weigh them against this or that. He or she is COMMANDED to love, to turn the other cheek and to not resist evil. You can certainly argue against this with what Rothbard calls "lifeboat situations" but if we are to speak in "the social context", which is to say in the realm of social policy then he or she most definitely could not construe that he should give his money to a private enforcement entity to put his fellow man in prison.
> 
> When everyone says "opposition in the social context" they really mean "paying someone to be violent on your behalf" (more on euphimisms below). It is certainly a Christian duty to rebuke your neighbor and put him on the right path. If you feel so and so is a danger perhaps he needs to be contained, perhaps an wrong-doer even died or was killed in a land filled with Christian leaders, but it wouldn't be policy, it would be tragedy, whereas in libertarian society it is called justice.


I'm not sure this follows.  The vast majority of "Christians" (note that by saying they claim to be Christians I am not saying that they are necessarily saved), at least in the US, support FAR MORE violence than the average libertarian.  And I say this as a Reformed Christian who takes his faith very seriously.  Of course, I believe these people are very wrong, and ignore large parts of scripture.  But I'm not sure where you seem to be getting this idea that "Christianity" is pacifistic.  As you are clearly not a Christian (you don't even claim to be one) I'm not sure what interest you would have in discerning who is or is not a Christian.  I also doubt you actually know how to accurately interpret the Bible, or have any basis on which to declare certain Christian worldviews right and not others.

Speaking for myself, I am not a pacifist.  I think violence should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes it isn't.  I don't see any problem with a Christian calling a private security/police company and asking them for justice anymore than I see a problem with a Christian dialing 9-1-1 in the present world.  

But even if someone was a pacifist, even if they personally thought that using police forces for any reason whatsoever and even if they thought violence even in the most desperate situations was immoral, I do not see how this precludes them from being libertarians.  In fact, I would say that if they were consistent, this very fact would make them libertarians.  A pacifist who is consistent cannot support the State or any other aggression, by definition.  So, if you are going to claim that Christianity is inherently pacifisitc (A claim I reject) I don't see how this makes Christianity anti-libertarian.  If you think it does, I'd like further clarification.

For what its worth, I do not think "turn the other cheek" teaches that violence is always and in every case wrong, but I am not going to have a scriptural discussion with a professing non-believer.





> I don't know how long you've been in the world FF but my years have taught me that 99% of what people count as their own beliefs they've never read or understood completely enough to make an informed decision as to whether it is useful or accurate.
> 
> Rothbard is the property rights guru everyone puts on a pedestal.  The ENTIRE POINT of Ethics of Liberty is to justify retributive violence ethically and morally. That's why it's called "Ethics of Liberty" and not "The theory of justifiable aggression and how it promotes a more rational society."  It is PRECISELY to posit that securing rights by violence is ethical and moral. It isn't a mystery I'm divining he clearly states it in the book.
> 
> Not only am I saying it isn't moral from a Christian standpoint I'm also saying that Rothbard clearly did not use "reason" which he tries so hard to appear to be proficient at to arrive at the conclusion that one has a right "to keep" his property.
> 
> I can point out for you, if you'd like the precise point at which Rothbard abandons reason.
> 
> The entire point of Ethics is not the reasoning that you don't have the right to criminally infringe on the rights of someone who has done nothing to you.  That is a truism that he acknowledges in chapter 4 when he explains what "rights" are.  He is trying to establish a second right, a "moral right" to violent defense of property.  All he has established up until chapter 12 is that what "you cannot do to someone" can be used as an outline of a kind of absolute self ownership of a person's life and property. This would include your life, your house, your car, your investments, and even the orange tree in your beach house in Jamaica.  So where and how will does he establish this moral right to violent defense?  He does it all in this first paragraph of chapter 12:
> ...


I define "libertarianism" as the non-aggression principle and private property rights (I dislike the term "self-ownership" for theological reasons).  Those who accept those two principles are libertarians, no matter what else they believe.  Those who reject at least one of the two principles are not libertarians, no matter what else they believe.

As for Rothbard, I haven't read much of him, but to be frank, I don't really care what he argued.  He had no basis for it.  Rothbard is helpful at explaining the "how", (ie. HOW society could function without the State) but his arguments for "why" the State should not exist are baseless, and like any atheist, Rothbard has a terrible epistemology.  Atheism cannot justify libertarianism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't see any logical contradiction between Rothbard's assertion that aggression is illegitimate and that using violence to repel an aggressor is legitimate.  I'm not saying you have to agree that Rothbard is right, but to say that its contradictory is somewhat absurd.

----------


## Ronin Truth

The litmus test for libertarianism is the NAP.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I define "libertarianism" as the non-aggression principle and private property rights (I dislike the term "self-ownership" for theological reasons).  Those who accept those two principles are libertarians, no matter what else they believe.  Those who reject at least one of the two principles are not libertarians, no matter what else they believe.
> 
> As for Rothbard, I haven't read much of him, but to be frank, I don't really care what he argued.  He had no basis for it.  Rothbard is helpful at explaining the "how", (ie. HOW society could function without the State) but his arguments for "why" the State should not exist are baseless, and like any atheist, Rothbard has a terrible epistemology.  Atheism cannot justify libertarianism.



You say "I define", but "property rights" are defined by Rothbard not you. You say you are a Christian which I'm sure also has an "I define" somewhere in there. Now clearly I have no credibility in Rockwell's world but I have read the book. And if your definition of Christianity conflicts with "property rights", to which the community defers to Rothbard for the definition thereof, will you reject it? And if you do will you counsel your Christian brothers and sisters, which is to say "everyone", that such a mindset is not in accordance with truth?






> I don't see any logical contradiction between Rothbard's assertion that aggression is illegitimate and that using violence to repel an aggressor is legitimate.  I'm not saying you have to agree that Rothbard is right, but to say that its contradictory is somewhat absurd.


The original reference to "contradiction" was with Rockwell and Rothbard quotes above claiming libertarianism "has no general or personal moral theory" when the magnum opus of his work on property rights has that intent in the book title itself.

But my critique of Ethics is not based on this contradiction but on the fact that he does not do what he sets out to do in the book. He does not sufficiently argue via reason the "second right" to which all his bloviations on "property rights" depend. That is all. You have not read it so I won't bore you or waste time by posting additional references from his book to support the point.







> I'm not sure this follows.  The vast majority of "Christians" (note that by saying they claim to be Christians I am not saying that they are necessarily saved), at least in the US, support FAR MORE violence than the average libertarian.  And I say this as a Reformed Christian who takes his faith very seriously.  Of course, I believe these people are very wrong, and ignore large parts of scripture.  But I'm not sure where you seem to be getting this idea that "Christianity" is pacifistic.  As you are clearly not a Christian (you don't even claim to be one) I'm not sure what interest you would have in discerning who is or is not a Christian.  I also doubt you actually know how to accurately interpret the Bible, or have any basis on which to declare certain Christian worldviews right and not others.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I am not a pacifist.  I think violence should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes it isn't.  I don't see any problem with a Christian calling a private security/police company and asking them for justice anymore than I see a problem with a Christian dialing 9-1-1 in the present world.  
> 
> But even if someone was a pacifist, even if they personally thought that using police forces for any reason whatsoever and even if they thought violence even in the most desperate situations was immoral, I do not see how this precludes them from being libertarians.  In fact, I would say that if they were consistent, this very fact would make them libertarians.  A pacifist who is consistent cannot support the State or any other aggression, by definition.  So, if you are going to claim that Christianity is inherently pacifisitc (A claim I reject) I don't see how this makes Christianity anti-libertarian.  If you think it does, I'd like further clarification.
> 
> For what its worth, I do not think "turn the other cheek" teaches that violence is always and in every case wrong, but I am not going to have a scriptural discussion with a professing non-believer.


I love to talk about Christ. I consider the subject to be infinitely interesting. I also consider discussion of Him to be the primary and foundational aspect of growing and expanding his true church. I am confused as to why you would jump to the conclusion that I am a "professing non-believer", I don't think I ever said that. I'm also confused as to what your methods are for spreading the good word when you refuse to discuss it with those in whom you believe it has not yet sunk in.

As far as interpreting scripture let me tell you what I believe. I believe the tragedy of "Christianity" is that we have let men twist what Christ said vaguely in order to contradict what he said clearly.

He clearly said do not hate, he clearly said turn the other cheek, he clearly said do not judge, he clearly said take no oaths, he clearly said blessed are the poor, the afflicted, the mournful and the persecuted.

How exactly can we go from those positions to a ruleset that justifies persecution for wrongs done as interpreted by the same sorts of men who do the wrongs in the first place? "Do not judge"? Shall we throw all these things out and reinterpret every line based on the consensus of the day for what is right and wrong? Was every word Christ spoke an encoded message? Why not if that's the case speak to the religious elite instead of fisherman and prostitutes?

That as a Christian we should not pay other men to punish is blatantly obvious. But the violence ultimately is a worldview and spiritual position. People won't let go of violence because they think some men deserve it more than others. They go about their life adorning themselves in thoughts of justice and peace all the while carrying in their hearts and minds an endorsement and committment to violence and hatred.

Did Christ not command not to even hate your brother in your heart? Do people console themselves by framing it intellectually?  "I don't hate the man, but according to laws based on justice he must be punished." Whether you hate someone passionately or intellectually it is the same.

Ethics of Liberty is a perfect analogy for the mind of the contemporary man. Believing they are logical, consistent, ethical, moral.  But at the root of their mind, just as in the book, there is a conscious choice to choose violence and revenge over compassion and forgiveness.  And the pretense that it is a "reasoned" position is the position of a man fooling himself just like the gaping whole of the "it then follows"/"therefore" in line 1 of chapter 12.

I define a Christian simply: A person is a Christian to the extent that he consciously does the will of God as embodied in the commands of Christ.

We can certainly discuss that. But to discuss "on whose authority and by what right" I have to speak about Christ and God I will not discuss. Either the words ring true or they do not. Where is it written that men should decide which true sounding words should be ignored and which false words should be believed based on someone's reputation?

But I am not naive. Of course this is exactly what happens. It happens this way in the contemporary world of Christianity because it couldn't have happened any other way. The persecution of Christ is the persecution of truth. Being a Christian used to get you executed. Now that it's been watered down and accepted by the state and made "respectable" and "practical" a soldier can claim adherence as he bombs a village, and a witness in court can feel righteous when he swears on a bible wherein the very text under their palm prohibits doing just that.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I read through Jeff Tucker's diatribe about whatever it is that happened in their circle, and made it through just enough of Rockwell's piece here to figure out he was probably moved to write on the same event.
> Someone pissed off a bunch of regulars, apparently, and I'm not sure why I should invest time and energy examining the finer points of the libertarian movement as a result.


Jeff wrote about his departure from LvMI?

----------


## green73

Agora paid Tucker a hell of a lot of money to come work for them. There was no rift as far as I know.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The litmus test for libertarianism is the NAP.


NAP can be construed do be many things, pacifistic, Christian, Buddhist, non-violent. But libertarianism is explicitly defined as "the moral right to violently defend one's person, and homestead/contractually acquired property."

My whole point is that libertarianism is not just "non aggression", it is the belief that aggressors should be made to answer for their aggression. If you disagree you are not libertarian since by definition you do not agree to pay to have this service performed.

THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.

Libertarianism (property right based government) is actually more violent than our current system. Rothbard promotes forced labor chain gangs as well as tit-for-tat mutilation.

This is not nit-picking.  It is a fundamental and irreconcilable philosophical division between property rights and Christian commandments.  A Christian most certainly does not have a "right" to violently defend his property. He may feel a necessity, he may think violence would make some circumstance better, hell God might even command him to bash someone over the head, but to generalize this into politics and rubber stamp punishement as "moral" based on "property" he cannot do.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## Ronin Truth

> Exactly. You are both right. This is why I like discussion.
> 
> So basically Rockwell is saying that libertarianism is morally agnostic outside of its "bedrock" moral principle of retributive violence. It does not bend to include any other moral principle nor to abandon it's own adherence to retributive violence.
> 
> So a Christian who by definition is commanded to refrain from such activity is on notice that they shall not sway the libertarian center. Which should be fine since he or she should never be part of it in the first place.
> 
> And the bedrock moral position isn't non-aggression. That violence against criminals is ethical is the bedrock moral position.
> 
> Non-aggression is not the principle. Does libertarianism say you get a cookie for being non-aggressive? No, Rothbard explicitly indicates in his book that defending your property by violence is what creates liberty. He claims those who do not work against it.
> ...


Here's a view from another libertarian patriarch, Robert LeFevre, and my preferred original mentor. He and Murray were friends but disagreed on some issues.

_Aggression is Wrong_, by Robert LeFevre

----------


## mad cow



----------


## Occam's Banana

> My whole point is that [...] non-aggressors should be made to answer for their aggression.


o_O

----------


## wizardwatson

> o_O


corrected, thanx.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

Gee, I knew I could always count on LRC to turn out some real crocks of horse$#@! from time to time. This article becomes especially hilarious once one realizes that the same website responsible for peddling certain views on race, gender, and a whole host of other issues as part of a twisted marketing strategy to appeal to a decidedly paleoconservative audience (look how _that_ little number turned out in terms of effectiveness) is now complaining about any attempt to appeal to the oh-so-evil "egalitarian" mindset. I guess it's OK for libertarians to talk about cultural issues as long as they meet LRC's pre-defined standards! 

Furthermore, the "thick vs. thin" dichotomy (as mentioned earlier in this thread, not explicitly in the article) rings somewhat false. All libertarians have both thin and thick argumentative methods. Thin only means the group of beliefs common to all libertarians, while thick refers to the additional beliefs that one has in order to gain a more complete understanding of libertarianism (examples of these beliefs include views on animal rights, for instance). Here's the real mind-bending part: if you're someone who believes libertarianism only implies a commitment to the non-aggression principle and nothing else, you have a "thick" conception of liberty, because this is not necessarily implied by the NAP. This distinction seems useless, but thick libertarians may also conclude (for example) that non-violent racism is more un-libertarian than non-violent anti-racism. How so? Because libertarianism is a commitment to individualism, not to "collectivist" (for lack of a better term) viewpoints. We've all heard a thousand times before how people are perfectly entitled to being racists, and that's all well and good, but it's not personally worth it to me if I don't start working with other people to move beyond such a simplistic, "let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may" attitude. 

Above all, is there really anything so wrong with encouraging people to be decent to others? That in itself has nothing to do with the criteria for being a libertarian, it just so happens that some libertarians are embracing this mission from a strategic angle (and they often have good things to say). People generally want to be catered to, and that typically doesn't happen when they are told that in order to be a libertarian, they need only concern themselves with force growing out of the barrel of a gun.

----------


## Cabal

> Above all, is there really anything so wrong with encouraging people to be decent to others?


Rockwell isn't suggesting there's anything wrong with encouraging people to be decent to others. He's suggesting people stop trying to redefine libertarianism, and thereby try to turn it into something that it's not while also imposing this redefinition on others in the process.




> Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism.  Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians.


I suspect that if someone wanted to extend libertarianism to encompass something more than it does, they would need to philosophically tie their proposed extensions into the core if they hope to appeal to the so-called 'purists,' such as Rockwell, perhaps. Otherwise, I don't see people like Rockwell being willing to embrace another brand of libertarianism as being libertarian.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Rockwell isn't suggesting there's anything wrong with encouraging people to be decent to others. He's suggesting people stop trying to redefine libertarianism, and thereby try to turn it into something that it's not while also imposing this redefinition on others in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that if someone wanted to extend libertarianism to encompass something more than it does, they would need to philosophically tie their proposed extensions into the core if they hope to appeal to the so-called 'purists,' such as Rockwell, perhaps. Otherwise, I don't see people like Rockwell being willing to embrace another brand of libertarianism as being libertarian.


I think most careful and/or intellectually honest left-libertarians don't say "Hey, if you don't agree with me that feminism and egalitarianism are very compatible with libertarianism, you must not be a libertarian" -- instead, the claim tends to be that libertarians not interested in such issues are quite honestly missing out on how libertarianism, as an arguably very narrow framework, intersects a plethora of good scholarship on certain ethical and social issues. It's not _required_ as some sort of litmus test, but it goes a long way towards trying to broaden one's philosophy. This is part of the reason why, in my admittedly biased view, more thinly-oriented people tend to look "incomplete" or sometimes downright silly (if they're bad at debating) when facing someone who is willing to integrate concepts from many other schools of thought in his or her argumentation. That is also why you won't find me trying to deliberately appeal to the strict purists anytime soon.

----------


## Cabal

> I think most careful and/or intellectually honest left-libertarians don't say "Hey, if you don't agree with me that feminism and egalitarianism are very compatible with libertarianism, you must not be a libertarian"


Perhaps not, but it seems some do tend to package these sorts of 'addons' into their particular brand of libertarianism as the definition of libertarianism, and some even go as far as to imply, or otherwise suggest that such is what libertarianism ought to be, and that anything less is somehow... worse. But I'm not sure how this really relates to what Rockwell is discussing in his article--he's not suggesting there is a lack of compatibility with other concerns; again, he's simply saying these are not what define libertarianism. 

What's more, from what I've seen, these types tend to focus much more on the 'addons' than they do on the core, but I guess that's part of what may irk folks like Rockwell.




> This can lead only to confusion, and to watering down the central moral claims, and the overall appeal, of the message of liberty.


Incidentally, you've provided a rather convenient example of the kind of attitude I'm talking about above:




> ...but it goes a long way towards trying to broaden one's philosophy. This is part of the reason why, in my admittedly biased view, more thinly-oriented people tend to look "incomplete" or sometimes downright silly


The pejorative connotations; the suggestions of inadequacy; the implications of 'this is more libertarian,' or 'this is the better libertarianism' is fairly blatant regardless of claims to the contrary.

I'm also not really sure how much broader you can get than such things as property rights and NAP, given their universality. To me, it would seem that adding caveats to this would be to narrow it, not broaden it. You also seem to be suggesting that 'purists' do not have other concerns, or other values outside of their libertarianism that they  promote simply because those things aren't included as part of their libertarianism; and I don't think this is accurate either. There are plenty of 'purists' who take positions on many things, and who have no problem engaging in other areas that may resonate with them; they simply don't presume to redefine an ideology that doesn't speak on such particulars by these personal inclinations. 

That's mostly how I took what Rockwell is discussing in the article, anyway.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You say "I define", but "property rights" are defined by Rothbard not you.


Why?  Who says his definition is valid?  He's an atheist, and so he cannot prove that "property rights" are even moral?  That said, I'm not really too much into labels.  Labels are helpful to convey certain ideas but if you want to label me as something else I'm fine with that.  I believe in self-ownership (in a legal, not theological context.)  I believe in the homesteading principle.  I believe private property rights should be respected.  I believe theft (including any form of compulsory taxation) is always wrong.  I believe free market competition should never be stifled in any area, including police, courts, and defense.  I support the non-aggression principle, and believe aggression is always wrong.  I believe people should always have the right legally, though not necessarily theologically, to seek retribution up to and including the degree to that which the aggressor took to begin with.  I believe in peace and non-interventionism.  I believe fractional reserve banking is a form of fraud.  I believe "public property" should be privatized rather than kept in the government's hands.  I think all "victimless crimes" should be removed from the law books.  I could go on and on here, but if you want to write me out of being "libertarian" because of theology or because of a small subset of views that I hold politically (after all, no 2 libertarians agree on EVERY point), so be it.  Then I'm not a libertarian.  I don't honestly care.  But I am not certainly an anti-statist.




> You say you are a Christian which I'm sure also has an "I define" somewhere in there.


Of course.  I wasn't going to bring this up now, but since you asked, I believe a Christian is someone who believes that God the Son came down to earth to pay the price for their sins and who trusts in his death alone to save them from the eternal punishment they rightly deserve before a righteous God (See Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, Romans 10:3, John 10:15, John 10:27, Romans 5:8 and Romans 10:9.)  Of course, I am not saying that every Christian will word things this way, or that every Christian will define "Christian" the exact same way, but I do believe that everyone who does not believe those propositions is not a Christian.  I would also hold that not everyone who SAYS they believe those propositions is a Christian, there are people who would say they hold to those doctrines and yet would hold other doctrines that clearly contradict those.




> Now clearly I have no credibility in Rockwell's world but I have read the book. And if your definition of Christianity conflicts with "property rights", to which the community defers to Rothbard for the definition thereof, will you reject it?


While I believe every Christian should defend property rights (I am not sure what Rothbard's definition is) and while I believe property rights are Biblical (Exodus 20:15, among numerous other texts) I don't believe property rights has anything to do with the DEFINITION of Christian.




> And if you do will you counsel your Christian brothers and sisters, which is to say "everyone", that such a mindset is not in accordance with truth?


Who says everyone is my Christian brother and sister?  I certainly do not believe this.  Most people on this earth are brothers and sisters in Satan.  Only a minority of people on earth are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I don't know what "Rothbard's definition" is, but I would certainly say that any Christian who supports statism in any form is violating God's Word and should repent.  This has nothing to do with my definition of Christian (ie. not all Christians are anti-statists) but I do believe that the Bible teaches anti-statism and that Christians should be anti-statists.







> The original reference to "contradiction" was with Rockwell and Rothbard quotes above claiming libertarianism "has no general or personal moral theory" when the magnum opus of his work on property rights has that intent in the book title itself.


I assume that when Rockwell and Rothbard mean by "personal morality" they mean morality that goes above and beyond the NAP.  For instance, "Is it wrong to sleep with multiple women who one is not married to on a single night?"  This question has nothing to do with libertarianism or the NAP, so libertarianism does not answer it, and an individual libertarian can have varying positions on this issue as long as their opinion does not involve aggressive violence.  By contrast, "Murder is wrong" is something that every libertarian must agree on, because that issue IS related to the NAP and those who hold the contrary position are not NAP supporters and thus not libertarians.  Does that make sense?
But my critique of Ethics is not based on this contradiction but on the fact that he does not do what he sets out to do in the book. 








> I love to talk about Christ. I consider the subject to be infinitely interesting. I also consider discussion of Him to be the primary and foundational aspect of growing and expanding his true church. I am confused as to why you would jump to the conclusion that I am a "professing non-believer", I don't think I ever said that.


Well, I assumed based on the following syllogism:

1. You seemed to imply that libertarianism and Christianity are contradictory.

2. You seemed to reference libertarianism in a positive light.

3. Thus I assumed you were not a Christian or claiming to be a Christian.

Admittedly, I obviously didn't fully understand your original response, but if you could clarify I'd love it  Do you agree with the definition of "Christian" I gave above?  If not, do you at least agree with all of the doctrines I put in the definition?




> I'm also confused as to what your methods are for spreading the good word when you refuse to discuss it with those in whom you believe it has not yet sunk in.


I'm not saying I wouldn't discuss it.  I'll discuss the gospel with anyone who wants to hear it.  (I will not, however, throw it before those who are still hostile to it, I'll use presuppositional apologetics and epistemology to tear down their worldview first.)  But, I wouldn't want to discuss a secondary point (for instance, what exactly the Bible claims about violence) to someone who won't even acknowledge scripture as their authority anyway.  Why would I waste my time?  Now, I may have misunderstood you before, so I am not necessarily counting you in this group. 




> As far as interpreting scripture let me tell you what I believe. I believe the tragedy of "Christianity" is that we have let men twist what Christ said vaguely in order to contradict what he said clearly.


OK.  I have no issue with that.  Matthew 20:25 immediately comes to mind.  Most modern Christians don't even realize this text exists, or they have no idea how to interpret it.  Jesus was completely and clearly opposing the State.  Most modern Christians take a relatively vague statement like "Render unto Caesar" and read an endorsement of the State into it where Jesus CLEARLY opposes it in Matthew 20:25.




> He clearly said do not hate,


I agree.  Don't hate.  Sometimes harshness is necessarily (John the Baptist called the Pharisees "Vipers") but even then, one should be harsh in love in hopes that God will open the person's eyes and cause them to repent so that they will be spared of the Hell they rightly deserve.




> he clearly said turn the other cheek,


In cultural context, a slap on the cheek was more an insult than a threat.  I'm not sure you can apply that text to an armed robber who breaks into your home and tries to shoot your children.




> he clearly said do not judge,


See Luke chapter 3, where John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "vipers".  Was he sinning?  When Paul said the Galatian Judaizers were anathema, was he violating Matthew 7:1?  Of course not.  Statements like "don't judge" must be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture.  In context, the passage refers to hypocritical judgments, not all judgments.  




> he clearly said take no oaths,


Well, he did say "do not swear at all", but the context was clearly Pharisees using convoulted terminology to justify breaking their word depending on what exact terminology they used.  I don't think this is condemning ALL oaths (Say, swearing that you'll tell the truth in court), I think it is saying that oaths shouldn't be necessary, and that not making an oath does not clear one of the moral obligation to do what he says he will do.




> he clearly said blessed are the poor, the afflicted, the mournful and the persecuted.


1 Corinthians 1:26-31 shows that God chooses the weak things of the world to shame the wise.  This is a qualified statement, not an absolute one.  God is not saying that every wealthy and powerful person is damned (See David, a "man after God's own heart" and a wealthy king) or that all poor people without exception are blessed (There are plenty of poor people who do not ever believe, and thus are not Christ's sheep as per John 10:26-27.)  Rather, God is saying that nobody has a right to boast in themselves (See Galatians 6:14) and those who have worldly goods or power are more likely to boast in themselves and that those who boast in themselves are not godly.



> How exactly can we go from those positions to a ruleset that justifies persecution for wrongs done as interpreted by the same sorts of men who do the wrongs in the first place? "Do not judge"? Shall we throw all these things out and reinterpret every line based on the consensus of the day for what is right and wrong? Was every word Christ spoke an encoded message? Why not if that's the case speak to the religious elite instead of fisherman and prostitutes?


Christ did speak to the religious elite, he CONDEMNED them.  He didn't condemn the prostitutes because they KNEW they were sinners.

I am uncertain what this has to do with anything.  I've never condoned persecution.  Are you accusing other Christians of doing so?  If so, who?




> That as a Christian we should not pay other men to punish is blatantly obvious. But the violence ultimately is a worldview and spiritual position. People won't let go of violence because they think some men deserve it more than others. They go about their life adorning themselves in thoughts of justice and peace all the while carrying in their hearts and minds an endorsement and committment to violence and hatred.


Punish for what?  if you're speaking of violent crimes, I don't think that's necessarily obvious (Genesis 9:6 immediately comes to mind.)  But even if that's your conviction, that has nothing to do with libertarianism.  In fact, libertarianism would enable you to live out your conviction far more so than the current laws of the land, where you have to pay for the punishing forces whether you like it or not.


> Did Christ not command not to even hate your brother in your heart? Do people console themselves by framing it intellectually?  "I don't hate the man, but according to laws based on justice he must be punished." Whether you hate someone passionately or intellectually it is the same.


I'm not sure how "this murderer needs to be killed because he has stolen life and has been proven guilty, lest he commit the crime again" is necessarily corrolating with hating the man.  Now, both elements COULD be present, but I don't think they have to be.



> Ethics of Liberty is a perfect analogy for the mind of the contemporary man. Believing they are logical, consistent, ethical, moral.  But at the root of their mind, just as in the book, there is a conscious choice to choose violence and revenge over compassion and forgiveness.  And the pretense that it is a "reasoned" position is the position of a man fooling himself just like the gaping whole of the "it then follows"/"therefore" in line 1 of chapter 12.


I haven't read it, but I don't see why you'd have to agree with that book to be a libertarian.



> I define a Christian simply: A person is a Christian to the extent that he consciously does the will of God as embodied in the commands of Christ.


This is not a Biblical definition.  There is nobody who lives up to this standard (Romans 3:10-11.)  Now, I don't know you, and I haven't had this discussion with you before, so you may be using poor terminology, but if you really believe this you are not saved.  There are people who outwardly do the law of God that are still lost (The Pharisees and the Judaizers come to mind.)  Now, the Christian WILL strive to follow Christ's commandments, but that is not the ground for his assurance.  Rather, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 forms the ground for his assurance.  Do you agree or disagree with this?  Did Christ cover your sins, or did he die in order to help you live better so you could justify yourself?  This is the imputed righteousness vs infused righteousness debate, and it is a matter of life and death!




> We can certainly discuss that. But to discuss "on whose authority and by what right" I have to speak about Christ and God I will not discuss. Either the words ring true or they do not. Where is it written that men should decide which true sounding words should be ignored and which false words should be believed based on someone's reputation?


I was under the impression that you did not confess to believe in Jesus Christ.  Based on that assumption, I would not debate the meaning of the scriptures.  I will not debate the meaning of the scriptures with those who reject the scripture's authority.  With such people, I would rather go to epistemology; ask them what their authority is and how they know it is true.  Only once the fool's pride has been shattered and his heart softened to the truth would I present the gospel to him (see Proverbs 26:4-5.)  I will show a fool his folly without answering him on his own terms lest I be like him.

Now, you claim to believe in Christ, so I was confused and in error about my assumption, and I apologize to you for that.  I assume you also believe that scripture is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16) and I will assume this to be so unless you tell me otherwise.  With anyone who already accepts the scripture as their authority, I WILL discuss the meaning of the scriptures, regardless of whether they subscribe to damnable heresies or not.  does that make sense?  If not, I can clarify.



> But I am not naive. Of course this is exactly what happens. It happens this way in the contemporary world of Christianity because it couldn't have happened any other way. The persecution of Christ is the persecution of truth. Being a Christian used to get you executed. Now that it's been watered down and accepted by the state and made "respectable" and "practical" a soldier can claim adherence as he bombs a village, and a witness in court can feel righteous when he swears on a bible wherein the very text under their palm prohibits doing just that.


I'm not sure if your interpretation of the oath passage is accurate (though I addressed it above.)  I want to see whether you are orthodox on gospel doctrine before we discuss that.  If you believe the same gospel that I believe, I'd be happy to debate that subject.  But if not, I'd rather discuss the gospel first.  I'd rather not get sidetracked by a non-essential.

As for war and bombing, I'm with you, and if you check some of my religion threads, its a subject that's vexed me a lot.  I believe the people who commit these crimes as a lifestyle are unregenerate as per 1 Corinthians 6 and Revelation 21:8.  Note that ceasing immorality is not a CONDITION for salvation, but when Christ imputes a righteousness to a man, he will live a Christian lifestyle, and there are certain sins that cannot be lived in as a lifestyle by the Christian because they are the antithesis of a Christian lifestyle.

I generally consider the fundamentalist churches that vocally endorse this sort of thing as being false churches, but that's another subject.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Perhaps not, but it seems some do tend to package these sorts of 'addons' into their particular brand of libertarianism as the definition of libertarianism, and some even go as far as to imply, or otherwise suggest that such is what libertarianism ought to be, and that anything less is somehow... worse. But I'm not sure how this really relates to what Rockwell is discussing in his article--he's not suggesting there is a lack of compatibility with other concerns; again, he's simply saying these are not what define libertarianism. 
> 
> What's more, from what I've seen, these types tend to focus much more on the 'addons' than they do on the core, but I guess that's part of what may irk folks like Rockwell.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> The pejorative connotations; the suggestions of inadequacy; the implications of 'this is more libertarian,' or 'this is the better libertarianism'* is fairly blatant regardless of claims to the contrary.
> 
> I'm also not really sure how much broader you can get than such things as property rights and NAP, given their universality. To me, it *would seem that adding caveats to this would be to narrow it*, not broaden it. You also seem to be suggesting that 'purists' do not have other concerns, or other values outside of their libertarianism that they  promote simply because those things aren't included as part of their libertarianism; and I don't think this is accurate either. There are plenty of 'purists' who take positions on many things, and who have no problem engaging in other areas that may resonate with them; they simply don't presume to redefine an ideology that doesn't speak on such particulars by these personal inclinations.


Sorry for seemingly getting off-topic here, but from reading between the lines of this article, I'm coming away with a very distinct impression that fits the impression that I've gotten from other people of Rockwell's particular ideological persuasion(s); that is, their 'advice' is to forget about feminism or other ideas as potential sources of valuable insight to libertarians entirely. I have not seen one discussion of feminism on Rockwell's site that wasn't laden with pejoratives and/or strawman claims. Most article space is devoted to dismissing any source of inspiration that might be seen as remotely "leftist". As a result, people just yuk-yuk at those damned evil bra-burning radfems without ever coming away with an idea of just how rich and varied the history of feminism is, as an ideological and social movement. I realize the article isn't explicitly castigating feminism or other forms of so-called 'identity politics' (itself a pejorative), but I can put two and two together. 

You accuse me of being pejorative myself, but I never said or really meant to imply that they were inadequate _libertarians_, only that their sets of beliefs typically aren't particularly impressive to me as a cohesive whole. So I guess my quibble isn't with libertarianism itself, but rather the fact that some people seemingly feel secure in practically dismissing anyone else who attempts to bring these insights into the libertarian sphere and say "Hey, look at what (typically a 'leftist' school of thought) taught me about understanding why liberty is the best solution." The same thing theoretically could, and does, now that I think of it, happen within left-libertarian circles when people bring up Rothbard's many valuable contributions, or Austrian econ. 

I do understand that some left-libertarians often appear to water libertarianism down. But I would submit that this is a product of many factors including [some of which you've already pointed out] 1) marketing strategies to get liberals reading, 2) sensationalism (kinda related to item 1), and 3) sometimes even a misunderstanding of terms used in their own circles. I've seen left-libs misunderstand the true meaning of "thin" and "thick"; I'll admit it didn't click for me until a few days ago. As for explicit caveats, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think a lot of the issue stems from people being terribly imprecise with wording. Oversimplification seems to be the norm. The focus of the left-libertarian's ire comes off (to the untrained observer) as being libertarianism instead of people who have no desire to expand their horizons and approach things from new perspectives. Most left-libertarians would love identifying themselves as libertarians if they didn't have to wade through the seas of deliberate, trollish obfuscation and general asshattery that seems to pervade some swaths of the 'purist' population. It is true that some 'purists' such as Stephan Kinsella and Daniel D'Amico, to name a few, generally do a great job of providing some perspective, and I would never accuse them of not taking feminism or other "leftist" ideas seriously.

----------


## ProIndividual

> The litmus test for libertarianism is the NAP.


No, it isn't. I no longer believe in the NAP, and yet I'm still a free market individualist anarchist (definitely a type of libertarian). There is no reason to equate libertarianism to any particular deontological, consequentialist (or in my case, circumstantialist) theory of ethics. In fact, Max Stirner was an anarchist, an egoist, and considered ethics to be non-existent (he was an amoralist), and also (like most utilitarians today) considered "rights" to be "spooks in the mind". All that matters is that we refuse to impose our subjective (and yes, I'm claiming all ethical theories are essentially subjective) ethical theories on others, by law or social pressure,  who do not consent (assuming they are capable of consent). That is congruent with the NAP and many other theories.

Point being, you can deny the NAP and still be an ardent libertarian. Libertarianism is concerned not with _aggression_ per se (although that is the most popular version), but with _coercion_. Those two words are closely related, but not synonymous. Because more times than not aggression leads to coercion (via initiations of aggression, as opposed to responsive/retaliatory aggression), most libertarians equate those two terms...but coercion can occur with no humans to initiate it (nature is the most coercive force any human deals with in life), and aggression can be defensive as well (responsive/retaliatory aggression).

I know that's controversial for most libertarians because of the colloquial way they define "aggression", but the denotative meaning of _aggression_ isn't just initiations of aggression, hence pure NAP adherents don't make self defense exceptions to the theory (pacifists). And of course, there are also "pacifists" who try and claim self defense is congruent with pacifism, which is completely ahistorical and illogical...but that's another story and debate.

So, no, the litmus test is not the NAP. There is no ethical theoretical litmus test for those who wish to decrease coercion to its lowest possible levels in the world, or abolish it (aka libertarians). To be a libertarian is to believe in any number of ethical theories, or even to deny ethics exist at all...the defining feature is that libertarians do not wish to impose their ethics or lack of ethics on non-consenting people (assuming they are capable of consent), via law or social pressure. Hence, for example, I can be against suicide (which I'm not, but it's an example), but not wish to outlaw voluntary euthanasia for those who see it as ethical. Personal ethical theories of what we see as "aggression" can vary (see abortion debates among libertarians, pacifist debates about self defense, etc.), but we all understand that imposition of one's beliefs on another without consent (assuming they can consent) is essentially coercion. 

We can't boil down ethics so easily. Even the abortion debate has more than just pro-life and pro-choice sides in libertarianism (I'm an evictionist, for example).

----------


## ProIndividual

> But libertarianism is explicitly defined as "the moral right to violently defend one's person, and homestead/contractually acquired property."


Then how are there pacifist libertarians who think of self defense as unethical? How about libertarians who aren't propertarians (which I am NOT - I totally am a propertarian)? That is not the definition of libertarianism. This is the most popular:




> Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies[citation needed] *that uphold liberty as the highest political end*.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. *It is an antonym of authoritarianism*.[6]


So, what is liberty and authoritarianism?:




> Authoritarianism is a form of government.[1][2][3] It is characterized by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.[5]





> Liberty is the quality individuals have to control their own actions.


Usually libertarians use terms to describe absolute liberty such as _individual sovereignty_ or its synonyms _self-ownership_ or _individual autonomy_. Absolute liberty is the assumed default for individuals from a libertarian perspective, and therefore is the basis for criticizing authority from that perspective.

----------


## Ronin Truth

It really ain't that tough folks. I see no need nor benefit in overcomplicating it.




> *LIBERTARIANISM 101
> *
> *Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, Justice
> *
> Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds  a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
> 
> The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his or her own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property  as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same.
> 
> Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you dont harm the person or property of others.
> ...


http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/

----------


## ProIndividual

> It really ain't that tough folks. I see no need nor benefit in overcomplicating it.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/


Sorry, that doesn't cover all libertarians. As I already pointed out, there is no one ethical theory that can be used as a litmus test for being libertarian. Some are amoralists in fact, and some are anti-propertarians (even if I and others here can quibble with them about the logic, and therefore ethics, of such a stand - which usually comes down to semantics more than substance). Posting a quote from a source that agrees with the false notion that the NAP and property rights are the litmus test (which is essentially what that does) doesn't prove it. The NAP is merely the most popular ethical theory in libertarianism, and propertarian preferences are only the most popular form in America; they aren't the only ones (and some deny ethics exist completely, for that matter...and most libertarians outside the USA are not propertarians).

I see no need or benefit from oversimplifying things that are in fact very complicated.

Your source ignores anti-propertarian strains of libertarians (that in fact predate our propertarian strains), it ignores collectivist strains (as libertarian collectivism and communism predate our individualist strains), amoralist strains (as opposed to our varying ethical theoretical strains), etc....and so it is ahistorical and bias to the definition of the term _libertarianism_. By this logic, many of the founding philosophers of libertarian thought can be excluded (Kropotkin's anarcho Christianity, Proudhon's, Tucker's, Spooner's, and Warren's Mutualism, Tolstoy's and Thoreau's anarcho pacifism, Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's Taoism - which is probably the first libertarian thought in history, etc., etc., etc.). It's like saying anarchists aren't libertarians...it makes no logical sense. 

_Libertarianism_ is an umbrella term that encompasses far more than modern American ideas about what libertarianism is or is not. The majority of Americans think it only means the NAP, and yet paradoxically also think it means only minarchism (and NOT anarchism). Is that what we want? A completely paradoxical and exclusionary meaning?

Libertarianism is defined most accurately as I described it in my last two posts (especially the very last one before this one). You think your more exclusionary version is actually more precise, and mine is overcomplicated? Only if oversimplification is your goal, I suppose. Most of the quoted article you posted makes sense and is congruent with what I already said, but where it mentions specific stands on property, ethics (or lack thereof), etc., it is flatly false because it's ahistorical and illogical. Libertarianism isn't so narrowly defined. Even in America, which is where I live (and I'd guess you do too), there are strains outside of the meaning your "Libertarianism 101" article suggests. That article is probably more accurate at describing the Libertarian Party Platform, not libertarianism as a philosophy.

My personal ethical theory isn't as concerned with the non-initiation of aggression, force, or whatever (which your quoted article seems to claim "libertarians believe...", as if its universal to the meaning of libertarianism), as much as it is with decreasing coercion to its lowest possible levels for a given choice set (and for why these aren't always the same thing, reread my 2nd to last post before this one). Besides, the NAP taken to its fully logical conclusions is NOT against just the initiation...it's against all aggression (it is the _non-aggression principle_, not the _non-initiation of aggression principle_). This is why pacifists are NAP adherents, and they criticize (quite correctly) those who think they are NAP adherents but make exceptions for self defense (and they also criticize self-labeled "pacifists" who claim self defense isn't a form of aggression). We have to remember, aggression is both initiated and responsive; and I can quote encyclopedia after encyclopedia to back this up. 

So, even if the NAP was the litmus test, because most libertarians (even as you first defined them) don't take the NAP to it's logical conclusions (pacifism), most of them would not qualify as "libertarians" logically. This is why I have to strenuously reject any attempt to say ethical theories (or lack thereof), and property rights support (or lack thereof) are defining characteristics on _libertarianism_. They historically and logically are not.

I will repeat what defines _libertarianism_ as a philosophy using logical cut and paste below:




> Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold the quality individuals have to control their own actions (liberty) as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association.  It is an antonym of absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience (authoritarianism).


Nothing in there suggests propertarian or anti-propertarian support. Nothing in there suggests any litmus test based on any specific ethical theory (or a rejection of ethics as a real thing, as in _amoralism_). It suggests voluntary association and individual autonomy, insofar as the individual doesn't consent to collectivism and loss of autonomy (and you can consent to those things, which would make them congruent with libertarianism).

It all boils down to consent vs coercion, not NAP vs amoralism, utilitarianism vs the NAP, property rights vs a rejection of property rights (or any "rights" existing at all), etc. This isn't a trivial thing. We shouldn't exclude people or philosophies from the definition of _libertarianism_ simply because it isn't a nearly identical match for own beliefs, ethics (or lack thereof), and views on property. On this forum, most will be fine with that; but much of what the majority on these forums are fine with don't necessarily fit into _libertarianism_ consistently (see their dislike for immigration, legal or illegal, some of the support for protectionism of other forms, etc.). Even some of the most respected libertarian authors do this (Hoppe and Woods on immigration are good examples - both of whom I like very much on every issue but those, as those stances are decidedly easy to criticize from a consistently logical libertarian point of view).

Anyways...I hate to nitpick (no, I really don't, actually), but to say ethical and economic preferences (the NAP and propertarian beliefs) are defining apsects of, and a litmus test for, _libertarianism_ as an umbrella of related philosophies is incorrect, both historically and logically.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then how are there pacifist libertarians who think of self defense as unethical? How about libertarians who aren't propertarians (which I am NOT - I totally am a propertarian)? That is not the definition of libertarianism. This is the most popular:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is liberty and authoritarianism?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An-coms argue that they support liberty as the highest political end too, yet we wouldn't call them libertarians.

----------


## ProIndividual

> An-coms argue that they support liberty as the highest political end too, yet we wouldn't call them libertarians.


Why aren't they libertarians? I consider anarcho communists libertarians, as do almost every political scientist on the planet. In fact, they predate propertarians like you and I in the libertarian tradition. 

If they are truly anarchists, then their communism is voluntary and not necessarily geographically based. Now, if they aren't real anarchists, they will use terms like AnCom and then describe a state by another name. But real AnComs are libertarians...they just aren't propertarians. I don't know where you guys get the idea that coercive communism is the same as voluntary communism. It's like saying AnCapism is equivalent to the crony capitalist scumbaggery we see today in America. They simply aren't the same thing. In anarchy, everyone can do as they please if they aren't creating victims. This includes various forms of economics (free market interactions, communist interactions, or anything in between), and various form of organization (anti-democratic, direct democracy, and anything else you think of that is consensual).

----------


## Christian Liberty

if anarcho-communism was completely voluntary it would be fine.  But the ones I've talked to don't want it to be voluntary, because they don't accept private property as the default, and they do not respect such rights.

I don't care about the political scientists definitions.  Let me just put it this way, they don't support freedom, whether "libertarian" or not.

----------


## ProIndividual

> if anarcho-communism was completely voluntary it would be fine.  But the ones I've talked to don't want it to be voluntary, because they don't accept private property as the default, and they do not respect such rights.
> 
> I don't care about the political scientists definitions.  Let me just put it this way, they don't support freedom, whether "libertarian" or not.


They don't have to accept property rights as a default to be for voluntary interaction (they can't, logically; they're communists). Not everyone agrees with us on the epistemology and metaphysics (self ownership and such). The fact that we can argue that is illogical is irrelevant...they don't need to accept any of that if in action they allow voluntary interaction. TRUE AnComs are all about voluntary interaction like all other TRUE anarchists...the problem is something I already stated: MOST self-proclaimed AnComs are actually statists by another name.

You simply cannot judge a philosophy by what MOST $#@!s who claim to follow it say. Read AnComs like Kropotkin (he invented mutual aid, or the private welfare system). 




> Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers.


Notice the voluntary part. He NEVER said anything in his writings about enforcing this on anyone through violence or threats, because that would logically imply a state.

It's like taking AnCapism cues from some douchebag who claims its not wrong to enforce through threats of violence capitalism (not a free market, as a free market means its voluntary) on society. If you haven't run into one of these guys yet, you will. I met a guy who wanted a white-only area, and thought he was an AnCap even though he would use violence to ensure it stayed white-only in his racist fantasy world. He claimed property rights allowed him to keep a black man in an ambulance from traveling on a road through his town in an emergency on the way to hospital in another non-racist area, despite the fact it was the only road between point A and B. He couldn't seem to grasp that an alienable right to property wasn't going to overrule an inalienable right to life...and he took it so far as to say he should be able to shoot any person, even a child, for merely walking on his lawn (trespassing). THAT is not an AnCap, sorry. That's the AnCap version of the AnComs you met.

Answer me this: How do you intend to stop AnComs from forming voluntary communes in a stateless society? You can't, without being a state by another name, same as they can't stop us from interacting in our preferred economic ways. And are you telling me if the world was stateless, of 8 billion people, no two people would forsake property together? Come on. Think about it.

A stateless world, or even large scale society like America, would work via panarchist synthesis (all economics and organizational preferences co-existing simultaneously among voluntary consenters). Any delusions that we will ever have a world with 100% private property is nonsense. Even Mises Institute author and philosopher Roderick T. Long has said this...he explains that commonly held property and public thoroughfaires no one particular person owns will exist in a stateless free market AnCap society. Not everyone will agree to make every single parcel of land (or other property) private...and as long as it is all voluntary, who gives a $#@!.

I hope you can see Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc. are libertarians. They were libertarians long before propertarians ever came along in history. To define it in such a way as to exclude these philosophers is to destroy the meaning of the word for our selfish reasons...the same way anti-propertarian anarchists call AnCaps "non-anarchists".

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sorry, that doesn't cover all libertarians. As I already pointed out, there is no one ethical theory that can be used as a litmus test for being libertarian. Some are amoralists in fact, and some are anti-propertarians (even if I and others here can quibble with them about the logic, and therefore ethics, of such a stand - which usually comes down to semantics more than substance). Posting a quote from a source that agrees with the false notion that the NAP and property rights are the litmus test (which is essentially what that does) doesn't prove it. The NAP is merely the most popular ethical theory in libertarianism, and propertarian preferences are only the most popular form in America; they aren't the only ones (and some deny ethics exist completely, for that matter...and most libertarians outside the USA are not propertarians).
> 
> I see no need or benefit from oversimplifying things that are in fact very complicated.
> 
> Your source ignores anti-propertarian strains of libertarians (that in fact predate our propertarian strains), it ignores collectivist strains (as libertarian collectivism and communism predate our individualist strains), amoralist strains (as opposed to our varying ethical theoretical strains), etc....and so it is ahistorical and bias to the definition of the term _libertarianism_. By this logic, many of the founding philosophers of libertarian thought can be excluded (Kropotkin's anarcho Christianity, Proudhon's, Tucker's, Spooner's, and Warren's Mutualism, Tolstoy's and Thoreau's anarcho pacifism, Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's Taoism - which is probably the first libertarian thought in history, etc., etc., etc.). It's like saying anarchists aren't libertarians...it makes no logical sense. 
> 
> _Libertarianism_ is an umbrella term that encompasses far more than modern American ideas about what libertarianism is or is not. The majority of Americans think it only means the NAP, and yet paradoxically also think it means only minarchism (and NOT anarchism). Is that what we want? A completely paradoxical and exclusionary meaning?
> 
> Libertarianism is defined most accurately as I described it in my last two posts (especially the very last one before this one). You think your more exclusionary version is actually more precise, and mine is overcomplicated? Only if oversimplification is your goal, I suppose. Most of the quoted article you posted makes sense and is congruent with what I already said, but where it mentions specific stands on property, ethics (or lack thereof), etc., it is flatly false because it's ahistorical and illogical. Libertarianism isn't so narrowly defined. Even in America, which is where I live (and I'd guess you do too), there are strains outside of the meaning your "Libertarianism 101" article suggests. That article is probably more accurate at describing the Libertarian Party Platform, not libertarianism as a philosophy.
> ...



It covers all that I choose to acknowledge as libertarians, FWIW. I never claimed to cover any and all splinter group off shoots that includes the maybe, somewhat, quasi-, sometimes, kinda, rainy day, etc. libertarians (so called) that have just chosen to incorrectly adopt the libertarian moniker on a nitpick whim. I've seen many of those types come and go over the last 40+ years as a libertarian. Welcome to the nitpick club. I think I'll just stick with my NAP gang. They make more sense. You may, of course, choose to call yourself whatever you want. But without the NAP you're not a libertarian to me.

----------


## Cabal

> It all boils down to consent vs coercion


While I agree with this, I think you may be overlooking the role NAP theory tends to play in relation to this, for those who espouse NAP. I understand you don't agree with NAP (even if don't agree with your disagreement), and I think this is what's causing the dispute here. But where there is consent, NAP is being respected, and only where there is not consent is NAP being violated. So in that context, NAP can generally be a fairly good indicator by your own characterization of the dispute: consent vs. coercion. I think your interpretation of what NAP does or doesn't say versus Ronin's is the crux of this dispute, in which case it's a rather irrelevant dispute to be having in the grand scheme of things. So, strictly speaking, NAP isn't a litmus test, but the basic idea it represents is. Over-complicating these things always leads to such squabbles.

NAP is very much concerned with consent. 
For example: The difference between sex and rape is consent. Sex is not a violation of NAP, while rape is.

You must disregard consent in order to violate NAP; where there is consent, there can be no violation of NAP--to respect consent is to abide by NAP. So when you say it all boils down to consent vs coercion, to those who tend to ascribe to NAP, in general, this is just a reiteration of NAP. Thus, this dispute is rather superfluous.

----------


## ProIndividual

> It covers all that I choose to acknowledge as libertarians, FWIW. I never claimed to cover any and all splinter group off shoots that includes the maybe, somewhat, quasi-, sometimes, kinda, rainy day, etc. libertarians (so called) that have just chosen to incorrectly adopt the libertarian moniker on a nitpick whim. I've seen many of those types come and go over the last 40+ years as a libertarian. Welcome to the nitpick club. I think I'll just stick with my NAP gang. They make more sense. You may, of course, choose to call yourself whatever you want. But without the NAP you're not a libertarian to me.


History shows we propertarians and free market individualists are the offshoot group, not the anti-propertarians. And read these forums enough and you'll realize most of the people here are maybe, somewhat, quasi, sometimes, kinda, rainy day libertarians.

You act as if most people who call themselves by any label live up to the actual label as put forth by the founding intellectual voices who developed the philosophies to begin with.

The idea you can define libertarianism in such a limited way is just incorrect historically. You want to narrow the meaning to some American colloquialism and exclude almost all libertarians worldwide (not self-described libertarians, but the actual libertarians who are consistent and want voluntary interactions, and yet still reject the NAP and property).

Also, I'm hardly a part timer on the libertarianism front, and yet I'm no NAP believer. By your meaning, I'm not a libertarian, which is horse$#@!. I may believe in property, but I am no NAP adherent anymore. So colloquialize, narrow, and try to monopolize the term all you like...it's incorrect.

----------


## Cabal

> The idea you can define libertarianism in such a limited way is just incorrect historically. You want to narrow the meaning to some American colloquialism and exclude almost all libertarians worldwide (not self-described libertarians, but the actual libertarians who are consistent and want voluntary interactions, and yet still reject the NAP and property).
> 
> Also, I'm hardly a part timer on the libertarianism front, and yet I'm no NAP believer. By your meaning, I'm not a libertarian, which is horse$#@!. I may believe in property, but I am no NAP adherent anymore. So colloquialize, narrow, and try to monopolize the term all you like...it's incorrect.


I think this is part of why voluntarism/voluntaryism was has become more popular in place of libertarianism (and even anarchism, or AnCap, for that matter) recently, for some; that is, to avoid these kinds of squabbles and focus more on the point of the matter.

This is actually related to something else I was thinking about not too long ago: how the current anti-statist theory in the tradition of property rights is actually rather 'new' relative to more long-standing notions of anarchy which tend to be more founded in leftist mindsets.

----------


## ProIndividual

> While I agree with this, I think you may be overlooking the role NAP theory tends to play in relation to this, for those who espouse NAP. I understand you don't agree with NAP (even if don't agree with your disagreement), and I think this is what's causing the dispute here. But where there is consent, NAP is being respected, and only where there is not consent is NAP is being violated. So in that context, NAP can generally be a fairly good indicator by your own characterization of the dispute: consent vs. coercion. I think your interpretation of what NAP does or doesn't say versus Ronin's is the crux of this dispute, in which case it's a rather irrelevant dispute to be having in the grand scheme of things. So, strictly speaking, NAP isn't a litmus test, but the basic idea it represents is. Over-complicating these things always leads to such squabbles.
> 
> 
> 
> NAP is very much concerned with consent. 
> For example: The difference between sex and rape is consent. Sex is not a violation of NAP, while rape is.
> 
> You must disregard consent in order to violate NAP; where there is consent, there can be no violation of NAP--to respect consent is to abide by NAP. So when you say it all boils down to consent vs coercion, to those who tend to ascribe to NAP, in general, this is just a reiteration of NAP. Thus, this dispute is rather superfluous.


1. The NAP is a fairly good indicator, not a litmus test, right? Litmus test and "fairly good indicator" aren't the same thing.

2. I'm hardly the only libertarian alive or dead that rejects the NAP.

3. Propertarian ideas are not the earliest libertarian beliefs, and they certainly aren't the only ones.

4. The crux of the dispute is not anyone's interpretation of the NAP...it's that he said it was the litmus test, and then went on to include propertarian beliefs as well. I happen to be a propertarian, and yet am still disputing this as well.

5. I agree, the basic *idea* the NAP *represents* is the litmus test, not the NAP ethical theory itself. This all started because of the idea that ANY ethical theory, or lack thereof, could be a necessary part of the definition of libertarianism. It cannot. No ethical theory or lack thereof is the crux of libertarianism. In fact amoralists exist in libertarianism.

The debate is not overcomplicated or superfluous. The debate is over whether any one ethical theory (or lack thereof), or either propertarian or anti-propertarian preferences can be used to define out of libertarianism the others. This flatly cannot be done. In fact, other ethical theories than the NAP and anti-propertarian preferences predate the NAP and propertarian preferences in libertarianism's tradition. My counterpart is trying to define them out. I reject this out of hand as changing the meaning of it to fit their own personal strain of libertarianism. I hate it when AnComs or AnSyndicalists say AnCaps aren't REAL anarchists (even though I don't consider myself an AnCap), so I'm not going to be hypocrite and act like its okay for AnCaps to do the same thing. We all need to accept history and logic...libertarianism is an umbrella term for a bunch of philosophies that concern themselves with liberty and anti-authoritarianism. Some are anarchist, some are minarchist, some are propertarians, some are anti-propertarians, and some (most these days) are NAP adherents, and some are not (some are even amoralists altogether). To deny this is to be sophistic, imo.

What did I get wrong there?

And I appreciate your opinion. I just think you got it wrong saying this comes down to how we see the NAP...the only reason the NAP is even an issue here is because he's asserting it's a litmus test and those who reject it fall out of the meaning of libertarianism. He went on to do the same for anti-propertarian traditions, that predate propertarian traditions BTW, in libertarianism. And again, I'm hardly the only non-NAP adherent alive or dead in libertarianism. I just happen to not adhere to anyone else's theory because I tried them all on, and found flaws (imo) in all them from one perspective or another. This led me to develop my own theory. I may be posting it in its own thread sooner than later, so it can be debated. But I could just as easily be an amoralist or subscribe to many other non-NAP theories other libertarians propose. Are they minority theories? Yes. Has that always been around in libertarianism? Yes.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> if anarcho-communism was completely voluntary it would be fine.  But the ones I've talked to don't want it to be voluntary, because they don't accept private property as the default, and they do not respect such rights.
> 
> I don't care about the political scientists definitions.  Let me just put it this way, they don't support freedom, whether "libertarian" or not.


There has been plenty of recent libertarian scholarship involving systems of ownership other than ones implied by the words "private property". See, for example, Elinor Ostrom's work on common (read: not "public" or "private") ownership - an example of a polycentric institution. It is not at all unlibertarian to say that society is more than the state on one side and the market on the other.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I think this is part of why voluntarism/voluntaryism was has become more popular in place of libertarianism (and even anarchism, or AnCap, for that matter) recently, for some; that is, to avoid these kinds of squabbles and focus more on the point of the matter.
> 
> This is actually related to something else I was thinking about not too long ago: how the current anti-statist theory in the tradition of property rights is actually rather 'new' relative to more long-standing notions of anarchy which tend to be more founded in leftist mindsets.


I agree that is why voluntaryism has become part of the lexicon...but alas, many consider it synonymous with AnCapism. In a way, this isn't totally false, as long as AnCaps continue to do what most other anarchist strains refuse to do; recognize the others they vehemently disagree with on property and ethical theories. 

I think these squabbles can be good provided they lead to a more rich understanding of what it means to be in favor of a stateless society. We all need to take a cue from the old "anarchists without adjectives" movement. If we can't accept and recognize each other, and see that organizational (democracy vs anti-democracy, federation vs confederation, etc.) and economic (free market, communist, collectivist, Syndicalist,. etc.) preferences are just preferences, then we're doomed to squabble endlessly over much of nothing. *A stateless society will have panarchist synthesis, or it won't be stateless, logically.* That means we must learn to stop rejecting each other as non-anarchists, or non-libertarians, or we're never going to get anywhere. Granted, many left anarchists (and the further the left, the worse it is) are the worst on this front...but we shouldn't match their intolerance.

And yes, the property rights preferences you and I, and the other fellow, share are rather new in libertarian thought. But I also find for some, it boils down to semantics. I have an AnCom buddy who does a radio show, and he introduced me to some Syndicalist anarchists who do a show as well. I debated them and found at the end of it all three of us agreed on a ton, but the semantics of the words "property" vs "just possession" were really getting in the way. Once we started defining those terms, we found little difference. For example, when I explained homesteading and mixing labor with things to arrive at justly held property, almost all of them said they considered that "just possession". The main differences surrounded rent, inheritance, and profit. But when I asked them how they could "ban" such things without coercion, because they were consistent in their anti-statism they admitted they would do nothing more than propagandize people and try to get them to join their ideas as an alternative.

At the end of the day, they stopped short of setting up a state by another name to squash us, and just resigned themselves to saying "you'll fail at this idea eventually, and we'll win". Of course, you and I think that exact same thing about their preferences. I have a sneaky feeling one man's accidental masochism is another's maximum utility. And since a happy worker is a productive worker, imagine the productivity level of a stateless society engaged in panarchist synthesis in organization and economics.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> History shows we propertarians and free market individualists are the offshoot group, not the anti-propertarians. And read these forums enough and you'll realize most of the people here are maybe, somewhat, quasi, sometimes, kinda, rainy day libertarians.
> 
> You act as if most people who call themselves by any label live up to the actual label as put forth by the founding intellectual voices who developed the philosophies to begin with.
> 
> The idea you can define libertarianism in such a limited way is just incorrect historically. You want to narrow the meaning to some American colloquialism and exclude almost all libertarians worldwide (not self-described libertarians, but the actual libertarians who are consistent and want voluntary interactions, and yet still reject the NAP and property).
> 
> Also, I'm hardly a part timer on the libertarianism front, and yet I'm no NAP believer. By your meaning, I'm not a libertarian, which is horse$#@!. I may believe in property, but I am no NAP adherent anymore. So colloquialize, narrow, and try to monopolize the term all you like...it's incorrect.


Whatever.

Have a good day.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Whatever.
> 
> Have a good day.


Gee, how can I argue with that stunning retort.

Have a good day too.

----------


## Cabal

> This all started because of the idea that ANY ethical theory, or lack thereof, could be a necessary part of the definition of libertarianism. It cannot. No ethical theory or lack thereof is the crux of libertarianism.


How can you say that it's all about consent vs. coercion and then say that libertarianism is not defined by adherence to a theory of ethics? You're not making any sense. 

Per your above post: 




> Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold the quality individuals have to control their own actions (liberty) as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience (authoritarianism).
> 			
> 		
> 
> Nothing in there suggests propertarian or anti-propertarian support. Nothing in there suggests any litmus test based on any specific ethical theory (or a rejection of ethics as a real thing, as in amoralism). It suggests voluntary association and individual autonomy, insofar as the individual doesn't consent to collectivism and loss of autonomy (and you can consent to those things, which would make them congruent with libertarianism).
> 
> It all boils down to consent vs coercion, not NAP vs amoralism, utilitarianism vs the NAP, property rights vs a rejection of property rights (or any "rights" existing at all), etc.


Why does consent matter if libertarianism isn't about an ethical theory? Where does the right to consent or not consent come from, if libertarianism isn't about an ethical theory? 

It seems to me that the variable of consent is meaningful _because of_ property rights. If we didn't have a property right in ourselves or our property, then what difference would consent make? None. It wouldn't matter or factor in at all. Consent is essentially permission, but what gives anyone the authority to permit or deny anything? Property rights. Thus, consent necessarily implies a _right_ to refuse or agree to actions of others upon those things that _rightfully_ belong to us. Consent and property rights thus go hand in hand. This is what makes consent is a meaningful variable in determining what does or doesn't qualify as coercion.

So, if it is, as you say, all about consent vs. coercion, then it is by necessary consequence concerned with property rights and ethics.

If libertarianism is concerned with upholding the quality individuals have to control their own actions (liberty), it is no surprise that an emphasis on voluntary association follows from this. Voluntary; consensual. If individuals are to control their own actions, they must be free from coercion. So this all ties in together and follows from the definition you've supplied.

You seem to be asserting that seemingly anyone can qualify as a libertarian regardless of ethics, yet in the same breath, by your own admission, you state that libertarianism is concerned with consent vs. coercion which, as explained above, is very much concerned with a theory of ethics emerging from self-ownership and revolving around the property rights that follow from it.

So which is it? You've already admitted that an ethical consideration of consent vs. coercion is necessary to what qualifies one as a libertarian, yet you maintain that Ronin can't or shouldn't be applying similar requisites which ultimately (setting aside rather meaningless semantics) match your own requisites. 

Can a rapist qualify as libertarian? Why or why not?

Honestly, I feel like your only purpose here is to rationalize your own dispute with, and rejection of NAP in order to reconcile your own ethical standards of libertarianism without overtly espousing NAP, even though your own ethical standards of libertarianism basically reiterate NAP. Again, this is all superfluous; practically arguing for argument's sake.

----------


## robert68

> Libertarianism is an umbrella term that encompasses far more than modern American ideas about what libertarianism is or is not. The majority of Americans think it only means the NAP, and yet paradoxically also think it means only minarchism (and NOT anarchism). Is that what we want? A completely paradoxical and exclusionary meaning?


I'd wager most Americans have never even heard of the NAP, and they're far to statist to care about the particulars on this subject matter.




> My personal ethical theory isn't as concerned with the non-initiation of aggression, force, or whatever (which your quoted article seems to claim "libertarians believe...", as if its universal to the meaning of libertarianism), as much as it is with decreasing coercion to its lowest possible levels for a given choice set (and for why these aren't always the same thing, reread my 2nd to last post before this one). Besides, the NAP taken to its fully logical conclusions is NOT against just the initiation...it's against all aggression (it is the non-aggression principle, not the non-initiation of aggression principle). This is why pacifists are NAP adherents, and they criticize (quite correctly) those who think they are NAP adherents but make exceptions for self defense (and they also criticize self-labeled "pacifists" who claim self defense isn't a form of aggression). We have to remember, aggression is both initiated and responsive; and I can quote encyclopedia after encyclopedia to back this up.


His article didn’t say or imply a “non-initiation of aggression principle”. It said:



> Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

----------


## ProIndividual

> How can you say that it's all about consent vs. coercion and then say that libertarianism is not defined by adherence to a theory of ethics? You're not making any sense.


It makes perfect sense. Are you telling me libertarian tradition doesn't include amoralists? Of course it does. Their reasoning for not coercing people has nothing to do with ethics from their point of view. You simply can't say a lack of belief in ethics as a concept matters to libertarianism's meaning. You and I may be able to argue with them on the logic of having no ethical beliefs, but that debate is irrelevant to the FACT they have no real belief in ethics, and yet are libertarians. You guys seem to want to see everything through the scope of your ethical beliefs (not the NAP, but that you can't imagine not having ethics), while I'm not (I can see how some people, right or wrong, logical or illogical, have no belief in any morality at all). I'm saying I agree with you that amoralists don't make a lot of sense when saying there are no ethics, but nonetheless they believe it, and that lack of ethical theory is still in the libertarian tradition. Stirner's egoism predates us all. 

And among those of us that have ethical theories, there are many diverse theories (although they are similar usually, and NAP is by far the most popular). So, again, historically, libertarianism CANNOT be defined by any one ethical theory or a lack of one. It's not relevant to the definition.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'd wager most Americans have never even heard of the NAP, and they're far to statist to care about the particulars on this subject matter.
> 
> 
> 
> His article didn’t say or imply a “non-initiation of aggression principle”. It said:


I was discussing American libertarians and Americans who did know what it meant. I chose my words poorly there, or maybe the context of it was lost.

And where did I ever say _his article_ said "non-initiation of aggression principle"? I said the NAP doesn't say that...it says the "non-aggression principle", which would include self defense as aggression if you look up aggression in many encyclopedias. This is why hardcore pacifists criticize those who say they adhere to the NAP as an ethical theory, and yet make what they see as a self defense (responsive/retaliatory aggression) exception to it (and I'm not a pacifist, but agree with the logical criticism), which in their (and my) view essentially nullifies the NAP (the theory can't both have an exception and be completely consistent). You either oppose aggression or you don't...you can't pick and choose. This is controversial, and I get attacked for stating this every time, but in the end it led me to abandon the NAP after I developed my own ethical theory.

Look, as an anarchist, I, by definition, seek a world as least coercive as possible (which might, and it would be nice if it were to, include complete abolition of all coercion). Coercion can be of nature or man (and technically its all nature, because man is an aspect of nature). Although we can distinguish between coercions of man and other natural sources, the effect on the individual of these coercions is essentially the same. So, I chiefly want to get rid of coercion as a goal...that's what being an anarchist loosely means.

For most libertarians, they see human aggression as the cause of coercion - and in most cases, they are correct. However, there are exceptions...and one obvious one is when defensive aggression can be used to limit the total amount of coercion put upon you or someone else. This would technically violate the NAP, and yet decrease coercion (which again, is the chief concern). Another example is any time a choice set contains no non-coercive choice, but only choices that are all equally coercive or of varying degrees coercive. Again, in these situations aggression can actually decrease total coercion. I found this applies, in the most rare and extreme circumstances, even to initiations of aggression. For example, if you are starving to death with your child in a famine, and all other means to get food have been exhausted, you have no non-coercive choice...you and your child can be coerced to death by nature (the famine), or you can initiate aggression and steal food from someone who has hoarded it and refuses it to you. The NAP would definitely, no mater how you define it, be against this initiation of aggression. It would call this act of theft unethical. I suggest that because it is the least coercive thing to do for all affected (1 person being stolen from, especially when they won't starve because of it, is less coercive than 2 people starving to death) it is in fact ethical (legal theory is another story, and I don't think it should be legal because you created a victim, and to avoid blood feuds we developed dispute resolution markets, or law and arbitration, to remunerate victims, or "make them whole" or "balance the scales" of justice).

My point is, I see the NAP like I see the Theory of Relativity...an incomplete but great theory that is awaiting a better theory to supplant it in order to deal with rare exceptions to it. In Relativity, there is the Special Case, which Einstein himself admitted invalidated his theory. He knew that there was an elusive "Theory of Everything", but he just couldn't figure it out. He gave us Relativity to use until we found that universally consistent theory without exceptions, as it was better than Newton's theory previous to it. I see the spots where aggression, initiated or responsive, decreases coercion for all affected as Special Cases, so to speak. They invalidate the NAP, imho. But until we have a better theory, we can't supplant it. So, I went about developing that theory...the PLC (the Path of Least Coercion).

This, of course, is controversial.

But back to the point of your comment...I was trying to explain to him that using the NAP as a litmus test for libertarianism is not only ahistorical, but illogical. This is because if we are logically consistent about the NAP and the ACTUAL (not colloquial and popular) definition of aggression, the NAP itself excludes anyone who isn't a pacifist from being a libertarian...which is just ridiculous. 

The NAP and property rights derived from it are NOT the defining aspects of libertarianism. No one ethical theory (or lack thereof), and no one view of property vs possession is. The definition of libertarianism concerns itself with actions (coercion vs consent) more than ethical debates and views on property that result from them. The oldest libertarian strains are anti-propertarian and not necessarily NAP-related.

----------


## Spikender

I know this is just a random aside, but while reading your example about the starving man and his child, ProIndividual, I can't help but feel that would be non-applicable today, at least in America. Most people seem to be willing to feed those in need, with a few bloodthirsty exceptions. I have seen many donate, work at food kitchens, or just plain feed strangers all the time. I think human kindness and an abundance of supplies in the absence of sanctioned theft would lead to a decrease in famine or the like, unless there is some sort of natural disaster.

Once again, this is only in reference to America/the West.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I know this is just a random aside, but while reading your example about the starving man and his child, ProIndividual, I can't help but feel that would be non-applicable today, at least in America. Most people seem to be willing to feed those in need, with a few bloodthirsty exceptions. I have seen many donate, work at food kitchens, or just plain feed strangers all the time. I think human kindness and an abundance of supplies in the absence of sanctioned theft would lead to a decrease in famine or the like, unless there is some sort of natural disaster.
> 
> Once again, this is only in reference to America/the West.


I can give you all kinds of places where it is applicable. Should the NAP be a rich-nation-only theory? And how about other cases like it not concerning famine...you can use your imagination I'm sure...like looting (and I mean scavenging for survival that includes theft, not looting TVs and $#@!) after a natural disaster. I can give you 50 hypotheticals and 50 real life court cases off the top of my head where this criticism of the NAP applies.

But that is besides the point. Is there, or is there not, a way that a choice set in an extreme and rare circumstance could contain no non-coercive choice, but instead a set of choices that are all coercive to varying degrees, or even all equally coercive (coercion neutral)? Of course there is.

I do see your point, but I didn't name what country this hypothetical occurred in. When I finally get around to starting a thread on my ethical theory, please participate via debate and critique. I have a feeling you'll challenge me on it in ways that need to occur to test my theory more strenuously than I can alone.

----------


## Spikender

I'm not daft, ProIndividual, I covered the point about my point only being about America in my original post.

But you are wrong in saying that can possibly be a situation in which all choices are coercive, there is always a non-coercive choice. It's just that I happen to believe that some situations call for an aggressive choice, particularity in self-defense.

Edit: Thanks. And as another aside, I haven't made my mind up on the NAP myself because I too take issue with certain parts of it. There's a lot of things I haven't made my mind up on, but seeing you and others debate in this topic helps me become more informed and I thank you for that.

----------


## Cabal

> It makes perfect sense. Are you telling me libertarian tradition doesn't include amoralists? Of course it does. Their reasoning for not coercing people has nothing to do with ethics from their point of view. You simply can't say a lack of belief in ethics as a concept matters to libertarianism's meaning. You and I may be able to argue with them on the logic of having no ethical beliefs, but that debate is irrelevant to the FACT they have no real belief in ethics, and yet are libertarians. You guys seem to want to see everything through the scope of your ethical beliefs (not the NAP, but that you can't imagine not having ethics), while I'm not (I can see how some people, right or wrong, logical or illogical, have no belief in any morality at all). I'm saying I agree with you that amoralists don't make a lot of sense when saying there are no ethics, but nonetheless they believe it, and that lack of ethical theory is still in the libertarian tradition. Stirner's egoism predates us all. 
> 
> And among those of us that have ethical theories, there are many diverse theories (although they are similar usually, and NAP is by far the most popular). So, again, historically, libertarianism CANNOT be defined by any one ethical theory or a lack of one. It's not relevant to the definition.


I'm not talking about libertarian tradition, I'm talking about your reply. You said that libertarianism didn't require ethics, and yet you qualify libertarianism as being considerate of the ethics regarding consent vs. coercion--and I'm not taking issue with the idea that ethics are a qualifying factor, I'm merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If you qualify libertarianism by ethical considerations, how can you also say that ethics are not a requirement of libertarianism?

Just because someone identifies themselves as a libertarian doesn't necessarily make it so, even if they believe wholeheartedly that their ideas are cohesive with libertarianism. This is why I posed the question of a rapist libertarian. Sure a rapist can claim themselves a libertarian, but a rapist's values are clearly at odds with libertarian ideals. Granted, this is an extreme, but surely you take my meaning?

If someone espouses ideas, or if they behave in a manner that is not cohesive with libertarianism when critically scrutinized, do they still qualify, strictly speaking, as libertarian? I'm not sure they can.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The *non-aggression principle* (also called the *non-aggression axiom*, or the *anti-coercion* or *zero aggression principle* or *non-initiation of force*) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.


 More at http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

I really hate purely semantic disputes. They're just a boring waste of time and effort to me. There was a time, however that time is now long past.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm not daft, ProIndividual, I covered the point about my point only being about America in my original post.
> 
> But you are wrong in saying that can possibly be a situation in which all choices are coercive, there is always a non-coercive choice. It's just that I happen to believe that some situations call for an aggressive choice, particularity in self-defense.
> 
> Edit: Thanks. And as another aside, I haven't made my mind up on the NAP myself because I too take issue with certain parts of it. There's a lot of things I haven't made my mind up on, but seeing you and others debate in this topic helps me become more informed and I thank you for that.


I didn't say you were daft, and I saw you mentioned, in passing, natural disaster. I gave you +rep before you posted the post I'm currently quoting and responding to. I wasn't trying to be a dick (maybe I'm just so good at being a dick that now I'm doing it by accident?  ).

There is no non-coercive choice in the famine example, however...so what do you mean there is always a non-coercive choice? Nature is coercive (and man is just one aspect of nature). Any force put upon the individual in such a way is coercive. The 2 people will starve to death by coercions of nature. The other choice is to steal food. You act as if pacifism and not stealing isn't resulting in continued fatal coercion of nature. To only look at coercion of man (merely one aspect of nature, and merely one kind of coercion) is not looking at all coercion. Nature can kill you. Whether your throat is ripped out by a mountain lion while hiking in the woods or gashed open by a serial killer hiding in the same woods is irrelevant. The coercion is in effect the same for the individual whose throat is torn out.

If you only look at human coercion on other humans you are missing most of the coercion you deal with daily. Why did humans invent clothes, shelter, medical science, etc.? To delay the coercion of nature which kills us by various means. It is all an attempt to thwart the coercions of nature. Man is just one aspect of nature. Our self autonomy (individual sovereignty, self ownership, etc.) is under siege at all times by the coercions outside the self, and sometimes they are other humans (the state being the most obvious example), and sometimes they other aspects of nature.

*There is always a non-aggressive choice* (pacifism, or inaction - wu-wei as the Taoists called it)...*but that may or may not increase or decrease total coercion of the circumstance for all affected*. We have to be careful not to use the words "aggression" and "coercion" interchangeably just because they are highly related. Most human coercion is caused by aggression, but in rare and extreme circumstances aggression can decrease total coercion for all affected. Also, coercions of a non-human origin have little to do with aggression from this point of view (most see aggression as simply a human act, not an act of nature, as interspecies aggression is often not defined as aggression in encyclopedias, and they specifically say this...so calling the cold or a hurricane aggressive is unlikely to fly - although I've seen it done and played along for the sake of the discussion).

I'm sorry I come across like a dick a lot, but I've had a ton of practice...lol. Anyways, I look forward to you debating me and critiquing me on my ideas on ethics when I start that thread (maybe this weekend I'll post it...it's a long post and not for the short attention spanners).

----------


## ProIndividual

> I'm not talking about libertarian tradition, I'm talking about your reply. You said that libertarianism didn't require ethics, and yet you qualify libertarianism as being considerate of the ethics regarding consent vs. coercion--and I'm not taking issue with the idea that ethics are a qualifying factor, I'm merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If you qualify libertarianism by ethical considerations, how can you also say that ethics are not a requirement of libertarianism?
> 
> Just because someone identifies themselves as a libertarian doesn't necessarily make it so, even if they believe wholeheartedly that their ideas are cohesive with libertarianism. This is why I posed the question of a rapist libertarian. Sure a rapist can claim themselves a libertarian, but a rapist's values are clearly at odds with libertarian ideals. Granted, this is an extreme, but surely you take my meaning?
> 
> If someone espouses ideas, or if they behave in a manner that is not cohesive with libertarianism when critically scrutinized, do they still qualify, strictly speaking, as libertarian? I'm not sure they can.


How can libertariaism's definition require ethics if amoralists are in the libertarian tradition? Consent vs coercion for amoralists have nothing to do with ethics, yet they are libertarians...how is that if ethics matter to definition?

What they DO matters, not what they argue about ethical theory, or lack thereof.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not arguing that I agree with them. I don't want to be forced (for lack of better word) into defending their weird point of view. I'm glad we agree it's not qualifying factor...but beyond that I'd have to try and pretend to be an amoralist to debate this. I'm not one.

I'm not trying to have it both ways...maybe amoralists are, but I'm not. They would tell you all kinds of reasons why they don't coerce people, and it would likely boil down to Stirner-esque arguments. I'll quote him in closing...but I don't agree with them. I'm just trying to point out they are libertarians with no moral theory from your or my point of view...they reject the whole idea of morality. But in action, which is what, matters, they behave as all libertarians...and they in fact predate us all in that tradition.

I'm getting put in a funny position where I have to argue you can have no ethics and yet be against coercion when I myself don't belief that. But there are people who do, and they are libertarians. That's all I'm saying. I personally have an ethical code, find ethics important, and don't get their logic completely (if in fact it is logical, who knows). My point wasn't to prove their argument that you can be against coercion in effect, and yet have no morality.




> *Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions – including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society – were mere illusions or ghosts in the mind*, saying of society that "the individuals are its reality." Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."[9]
> 
> *He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism*, in which individuals would unite in 'unions of egoists' only when it was in their self-interest to do so. *For him, property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"[10]*  *Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint[11] – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own).*


Benjamin Tucker, to my chagrin, later in life accepted this form of amoralist egoism. To them, the reason not to steal, or rape, or murder is the possible repercussion of doing it, not morality. It's in their self-interest, from their point of view, not to do those things...they spare you only because of that. 

But in practice, they don't coerce people because it might get reciprocated on them. To them coercion isn't "wrong", it's just against their own interests. It's similar to utilitarianism, but from a much more self-centered point of view. It's their ACTION of not coercing, and their opposition to it, that makes them libertarians...not their ideas on morality or it not existing.

I often criticize Stirner because, to me, his "Union of Egoists" is exactly what the state is...a bunch of people who are only out for themselves...but they have gotten so powerful that they are free of repercussions that most of us face, and therefore steal and murder at will (almost - they do have to worry about being hung in a revolution, but largely use the welfare state to avoid this, and use the warfare state to avoid problem from $#@!ing other states).

In other words, I think amoralism with egoism taken to its logical conclusions just re-establishes a state. Without society, there are no repercussions, and therefore no constraints on the amoralist egoist.

----------

