Why I'm a Libertarian

It seems that many arguments against libertarianism is that it's very absolutist in its conclusions. That is, we're against all forms of taxation, regardless of the programs for which the taxes are used, such as welfare. There are some who are moderate libertarians (what I like to call quasi-libertarians, or minarchists), and there are some who are libertarians in name only (what I like to call pseudo-libertarians, such as Glenn Beck), but these libertarians usually deflect these arguments by saying that they are for taxation under certain circumstances. However, those deontological libertarians who are consistent and oppose taxation for what it really is - theft - can't so easily argue against the accusation. At least, one would think so. It seems that the average person loves consistency until it conflicts with their pre-determined beliefs. For some reason, the same person who would point out one's inconsistency as bad thing would also point out one's consistency as a bad thing if they don't like the conclusions.

So, one must decide whether consistency or inconsistency as a bad thing. One may quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." Of course, there are two points I must address in this quote: first, it applies to foolish consistency; second, how is one to determine what is foolish? I mean, I could argue that consistent pragmatism in and of itself is foolish, since it never takes ethics into question (pragmatism is to be differentiated from consequentialism, which is rightfully considered a normative ethical philosophy). One could also argue that deontology is foolish, since it never takes consequences into question. This list could go on forever. Folly may be objective - that is, it exists independent from observers - but we have yet to come to an agreement for what folly actually is for every single case. I would argue, however, that consistency is neither good nor bad, but rather a tool. If the premise is faulty, then the tool of consistency will be used improperly; if the premise is accurate, then the tool of consistency will be used properly.

So, naturally, the question arises: "Is deontological libertarianism based upon faulty premises, or upon accurate premises?" In order for me to answer that, I would have to ask myself: "Is it true that no individual nor group thereof may use initiatory force or its threat against an individual or his property? In other words, do one person's rights only extend as far as another person's rights?" I think that many would answer yes to this question. If this is the case, why do people support taxation? I never agreed to the taxation; rather, the politicians did. One may ask, "What about the social contract?" I never agreed to the social contract; 222 years ago, 56 people signed the Constitution. I was not one of those 56 people. Nor did I send any of those 56 to represent me. So, I never agreed to it, and I never sent a representative to agree to it for me, I shouldn't be bound to it. Why? Because, according to the NAP, initiatory force or its threat shouldn't be used against me; in other words, an individual can't commit an act against me without my consent.

And this is why I'm a libertarian. It's a consistent philosophy. If you don't agree with it, fine, but if you disagree with the conclusions, argue why the premise(s) involved is/are wrong.

No One Can Steal Your Knowledge

Copyright laws, which are laws that "protect" intellectual property, are based on the idea that thoughts and ideas can be stolen. My question to you all is this: if you and another individual possess an identical goods simultaneously, has the other individual really stolen your good that you claim to be stolen?


Intellectual Property: A product of the intellect that has commercial value. This is really an amazing concept in the legal world. Apparently, as the law currently stands, if John comes up with an idea for a product before Ray (or even after Ray) that John copyrights first, he has the sole legal right to produce any and all copies of said product - that is, of course, unless John is so courteous as to allow Ray to also produce any amount of copies of said product. This basically allows for a government-enforced monopolization of the product to an individual or business. (Isn't that hilarious?) Let's say Ray decides to disobey the copyright laws and produce an identical item. Seeing this, John decides to persecute, saying that Ray is lessening his - John's - profits. Is anybody in the wrong up to this point? In fact, yes; however, it may not be whom you would expect it to be. Ray has crossed into ethically neutral territory; if John wins the persecution (both criminal and civil, most likely), then John is in ethically iniquitous territory. Why is this so? This is because John has inevitably inflicted undue punishment. Ray never stole items, never stole equipment, never stole the actual items themselves. Rather, he coincidentally possessed the same idea: to produce a certain product for profit.

Or, let's say a musician writes a song of which he is extremely proud (something to which I can relate). Let's say a friend of mine, who is in the recording industry, hears my song and decides he wants to take it home because he likes it and may consider it for the radio. I figure I may hear from him of it soon, although I make no contract stating anything about royalties, or even being credited. So, I burn the song onto a CD and give it to him. Six months later, I hear the song - as produced by a different artist, of course - on my favorite radio station. Within a few months, it's a #1 hit. Am I mad? Of course. However, the transfer of data (the song) was done so by mutual consent, without contract stating any royalties or accreditation; therefore, he had the right to do with his property what he desired, so long as he didn't violate anybody else's rights. (Remember the NAP?) Since nobody's rights were violated, my friend was in ethically neutral territory.


In essence, thoughts are not property. A thought is conceptual in nature - that is, it isn't tangible. If there's no tangible substance, then there's nothing to be stolen. Therefore, to answer the question of this essay, that individual has not stolen your idea, but merely used an idea that he also coincidentally possessed.

The State: Is It Iniquitous and Is It Necessary?

Now that the basic framework for ethics and morals have been established, now is the time to discuss the ethical standing and necessity of the State. The moral standing of the State will not be discussed because morality is subjective, and objectivity is being discussed, not subjectivity.

What role does the State generally play? No matter what you consider the role ought to be, the State always has, currently does, and always will, play the role of monopolizing the service of coercion within a geographic area. For example, the State of the U.S.A. monopolizes the service of coercion within the geographic area that is known as America. Canada plays the same role within its respective geographic area, as does every State. Its not defensive coercion, either, but rather offensive coercion; in other words, it doesn't retaliate, but rather initiates. Therefore, the State's role is to violate the NAP.

How does the State play a coercive role? First, it taxes. All taxes in place are currently compulsory, whether it's a sales tax, income tax, property tax, or any other tax. How are taxes compulsory? Can't we avoid the situations that cause us to pay taxes? Sure, we technically could; but then that would cause everybody to line up at the soup kitchen, right? Why must I be obliged to give up a certain percentage of my wages? Why must I be obliged to pay the government a certain percentage of my purchase's market value? Can't I receive my due wages? Can't I merely pay the market value of the item? If taxes were totally voluntary, as charity is, then they wouldn't violate the NAP; however, they're compulsory, so they violate the NAP; why do you think taxes are abhorred but voluntary charity is revered? It's because taxes violate the NAP but voluntary charity doesn't.

Second, the State legislates and enforces preventive laws. For example, drug laws have been passed in order to prevent drug abuse (or maybe even mere drug use?); drinking laws have been passed in order to prevent accidents, driving and otherwise; driving laws, such as mandatory seatbelt laws and headlight laws, have been passed to prevent car accidents and their effects. How is this coercive? Let's say I own 30 acres in West Virginia that I inherited from my dad, who inherited it from his dad (which I may relate to in a few decades, but that's besides the point). On this property, let's say, there's a road. If I drink, and then decide to drive down the road that I own, who's to say that it's illegal? It's my property, my rules; if anybody tells me any different, then it's offensive coercion, since I have not given them due reason to do this to me. Or, let's say I decide to grow marijuana on this property. How is this a violation of any person's rights? It isn't an infringment, nor is smoking it on my property, if I decide to do so.

This brings me to another premise: proper punishment is retaliatory, not preventive - a premise on which I'll expand in another essay. If we accept this premise, then we must define what deeds we can justly punish. The only justly punishable deeds are those which violate the NAP. Therefore, laws criminalizing the acts of murder, theft, rape, arson (most laws against such), and other such acts are seemingly just; however, we must remember that the State violates the NAP through taxes in order to execute these laws; furthermore, the State makes punishment mandatory, when it is rightly up to the victim whether or not the aggressor should be punished, and how. Therefore, these laws, though seemingly just, are really unjust because of how they're enforced. If the State were funded by completely voluntary means, then these laws which criminalize the acts which violate the NAP would be just.

Some will argue that a State is just via social contract. We must remember that the social contract (in America's case, the Constitution) was signed by a relatively small number of people. Those people agreed to the contract. I never agreed to the contract. If I had, then my signature would be on it. But weren't the signers of the Constitution representatives? Well, this may be true, but the only person who can truly and accurately represent me is I. I never chose any of those representatives. I'm not even considering the time constraint involved. First, the representatives only represented the people who voted for them to go - and not everybody voted for those representatives. There was a minority which voted for another representative. We must remind ourselves that the only binding contracts are the ones to which we consent - most of which is done through signatures. So, until I personally sign the "social contract," it doesn't justly apply to me.


Some others may argue that the State is a necessary evil. Let me ask you this: is any evil necessary? Why is it that if any individual murders, steals, or rapes, we will deter and punish such acts; but when it is done in the name of the State (wars, eminent domain, taxes etc.), we get angry but permit it? The more we rid the world of evil, the better off we'll be. If we rid the world of the greatest evil, we'll be better off than we've ever been.


Some may say, "Well, if a small group of people congregate together and form more or less a municipal government, is that government unjust?" In this case, if it is formed in a mutually consensual manner, then no, it is not. It is merely a congregation of people, all of whom mutually agree to live in a certain manner.


How will rights be enforced in an anarchist society, since some people may not live within these "congregations"? We will see a privatized law service spring up, since there will be a demand for it. In fact, we're seeing a form of it now: security guards. Multiple businesses will spring up to offer this service. In fact, such companies as Brinks may offer this service along with their home alarm system.


What about fire departments? Waterways? Roads? These will be privatized, whether by individuals owning the roads or businesses offering the services. We already seeing voluntary fire departments, and alarm systems companies such as Brinks, which offer fire alarms and CO sensors, may have their own fire departments as well. Waterways, just as electricity is now, will be privatized. What about the roads? Transportation companies may own them, or companies such as Cabela's and Wal-Mart may own a section of the road for their own personal use. Some roads may be owned by individuals who own large tracts of land. Won't there be tolls, and won't they be higher than what they are now? Not necessarily. In fact, companies which own these roads may be obliged via the free market to offer another service, such as what Greyhound does, to minimize or even obliterate tolls altogether. In fact, even if tolls are slightly higher, we don't have to worry about the government stealing our wages via taxes; therefore, the slight increase will be negligible due to the amount that we'll save in not paying taxes.


Therefore, the State is not only iniquitous but also unnecessary. It's coercive nature violates the NAP, thereby making it iniquitous; also, the less evil that there is in the world, the better; and what little good the government offers, can and will be offered by the free market.