What Is Libertarianism?


This interesting article shares a bit of that viewpoint..libertarianism. My big question, still unanswered about Libertarianism is how do you govern “for all” without some form of agreed upon compromise? It seems at first glance, in most forms of government (1),  that we all must give some of our freedom to get cooperation that benefits us in time of crisis? If you look back on the natural order of human evolution, it seems that to survive, we as cavemen (Like Dogs) grouped into “packs” and hunted together for our mutual survival.  We also did so to protect ourselves from competing and war like cavemen. There was likely no “option” to decide if you would join in protecting your wives and children. Libertarian-leade-2-300x300Those groups with “options” died out quickly negotiating their freedom’s while their heads were broken by those more decisive and organized (with some agreed upon coercion)! It has therefore been my contention, that Libertarianists cannot govern because government at its most basic means coming together to act when needed whether we feel like it or not, agreed upon coercion. It means giving up some freedoms of the individual for the survival of the group. It is not perfect for sure but it creates function. I have yet to hear a compelling argument showing us all how Libertarianism can do the same.  Not to say I would not love to!  I am challenging all Libertarianism followers to post one here for that very purpose.

However, back to another view of Libertarianism and what it is not!   So here is Eric’s article”
What Libertarianism isn’t . . .
by eric • July 5, 2014 
Just when you think you’ve heard (and read) it all, something like this falls into your lap. It’s a Bloomberg News critique of Libertarianism that equates it with – of all things! – communism.Libertarian lead

It dances on – at great length – without ever once mentioning the defining ethical principle of Libertarianism, the non-aggression principle (NAP for short). The idea that it’s never right to use force first.

The reason for not mentioning the NAP, of course, is that the article – and its ridiculous assertions – falls on its face if the NAP is acknowledged.

Consider some snippets from this epic work of evasion and slander:

“Let’s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values. ”

This is the “do anything you please” shibboleth Libertarians constantly encounter when dealing with Libertarian critics, who are invariably authoritarian collectivists of one stripe or the other. When the Libertarian points out the fallacy – that Libertarians believe individuals have every right to do as they please, provided they cause no harm to others – the authoritarian collectivist will then pretend not to have heard or understood. And give you something like this:

“Radical libertarians would be great at destroying.“Libertarian 3

Which conveniently overlooks that bit about not harming others, the Libertarian Golden Rule.

The authors of the Bloomberg piece must argue something that Libertarians aren’t – setting up the proverbial straw man before knocking him down.

Ironically, these critics are always the aggressively violent ones.

For example:

“The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation.”

Italics added.

Libertarian readers are surely groaning along with me right about now. We favor voluntary cooperation. People such as the authors of Bloomberg rant always insist on cooperation – at gunpoint. Their “cooperation” is of a piece with Social Security “contributions,” Obamacare “markets” and DMV “customers.” What they cannot abide – but will never state honestly and openly – is the idea that people ought to be free to say no. To cooperate – or not. It is this freedom to choose that drives anti-Libertarians up the wall. The horrid, insufferable notion that their “plans” be contingent on the consent of those they wish to enlist.Libertarian leade 2

But wait, there’s more. How about this one?

“Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish… ”

Ah, the “selfish” smear. It’s as effective as calling someone a racist. Shuts ‘em right up, most of the time. But Libertarians aren’t afraid of it – nor will it shut them up. What the collectivists really mean when they use the term is – someone who would say no if he were free to do so. As in the case of taxation. It is “selfish” to object to being strong-armed into handing over one’s money for the benefit of random strangers, who are themselves not regarded as selfish for using violence (if only by proxy) to take the property of other people. It’s ok, apparently, to selflessly do others violence – but LIbertarians are bad selfish for daring to object to the violence done them and for wanting only to be left in peace and to leave others in peace.

Such is the mindset we’re dealing with.

The true colors begin to leach through the further down the piece you go:

“… eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation . . . “

Well, yes. Taxation, period, actually, But progressive taxation is particularly noxious. It is the idea that those who have more “owe” more. Which is like saying it’s ok to beat a healthy person more viciously than it is to beat a not-healthy person. Because the healthy person can take it better.Libertarian Clover

How about not beating anyone?

That’s the Libertarian horror. Stop it with the violence. Leave others be, if they’re not hurting you in some tangible way (not liking what others may be doing is not hurting you, incidentally).

” … programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted.”

Translated: Wealth transfer and rent-seeking are boons. Which, of course, they are – to those on the receiving end. But what of those on the – uh – “giving” end?


“…we have to see that freedom isn’t simply the removal of encumbrance, or the ability to ignore inconvenient rules or limitations. ”

The only “limitation,” Clovers (I use this term as generic anti-honorific to refer to authoritarians) is the Libertarian ethical line in the sand: Don’t cause harm to others, or attempt to coerce them using violence or the threat of violence. Any “limitation” or “rule” that doesn’t comport with this standard – i.e., there’s no victim, no party harmed – is nothing more than an arbitrary construct and illegitimate on the face of it. No one – not the authors of this execrably dishonest piece especially – has the right to impose their little (and big) “limitations” and “rules” on other people. Because in order to do so, one must be willing to threaten to harm others – or actually harm them. And to claim a right to harm others – for whatever “public” or “social” good – is oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms. Good cannot be done by treating people badly. The only thing that can be done is exploiting or controlling some people for the benefit of others. This is the logic of the zero sum. I win – you lose. The balled fist, the gun pointed your way. The “or else” left unspoken behind every “request,” “plan” and “program” they trot out. Libertarian last

And they accuse us of being (pardon the language) “selfish” assholes!

The worst a Libertarian will ever do to you is not do anything to you. He might choose not to do business with you. Or rent to you. Or serve you. But you’d be free to seek out others to do business with. Or start a business yourself. Rent from another person – and so on. No violence would ever be done to you by a Libertarian. You’d free – and so would everyone else.

And that, friends, is the one thing anti-Libertarians dare not acknowledge. Must never address. Must evade, using all their smarmy demagoguery. For if they do acknowledge it, they’ve got no argument. No leg to stand on. Their violence is revealed, as contrasted with the non-violence of the Libertarian ideal.

Take heart from the pathetic shallowness of the “arguments” of our adversaries. They’ve got nothing – and they know it.

Throw it in the Woods?

Spread it via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).


We depend on you to keep the wheels turning. If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


(1)  A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]—known in American English as an administration. In American English, governmentrefers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators,administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.
Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason, political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with anthropologyeconomicshistoryphilosophyscience, andsociology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s