Books on Libertarianism - Starting Strength Radio

[Bre Acosta]

[Nockian]

The problem with libertarianism is that it begins with the non-aggression principle. There is no getting around the fact that aggression is sometimes required in defence of individual rights. Either everyone has to defend their own rights (anarchy), or they have to appoint a Government as the monopoly of force to defend those rights. We already have Antifa and BLM promoting anarchy, should the Government stop them, or do we all take up guns and see who is the best shot, the most aggressive fighter and the biggest gang ? The reason there are now so many shades of libertarianism is because it is essentially mysticism in a faux free market wrapper, so there are pink libertarians and most obviously Christian libertarians.

What should really be studied is the morality of capitalism, in which all property is privately owned and the need for that right to be protected by some form of Government, which itself cannot violate those rights, except where there is an initiation of coercive force.

[Brian Jones]

The problem with libertarianism is that it begins with the non-aggression principle. There is no getting around the fact that aggression is sometimes required in defence of individual rights. Either everyone has to defend their own rights (anarchy), or they have to appoint a Government as the monopoly of force to defend those rights. We already have Antifa and BLM promoting anarchy, should the Government stop them, or do we all take up guns and see who is the best shot, the most aggressive fighter and the biggest gang ? The reason there are now so many shades of libertarianism is because it is essentially mysticism in a faux free market wrapper, so there are pink libertarians and most obviously Christian libertarians.

What should really be studied is the morality of capitalism, in which all property is privately owned and the need for that right to be protected by some form of Government, which itself cannot violate those rights, except where there is an initiation of coercive force.

What is the name of the Book on Libertarianism you are recommending? Or is this from the title, "Who the Fuck Asked You?"

[Brian Jones]

The problem with libertarianism is that it begins with the non-aggression principle . . . . . .Who the fuck asked you?

. Not sure that the non-aggression theory holds up either . . but . . . I joke . .I joke . . .

[Satch12879]

The problem with libertarianism is that it begins with the non-aggression principle.

Except, libertarianism begins with self-ownership, from which property rights are derived, being norms by which control of scarce, rivalrous resources are assigned. From property, we derive the prohibition against non-aggression as aggression is a violation of previously-agreed upon norms of control of scarce resources. This is done voluntarily and does not need an overseeing body to sustain. The nature of arguing over something presupposes the norm of property, i.e., control of something argued over.

There is no getting around the fact that aggression is sometimes required in defense of individual rights.

What is it; aggression or defense? Libertarians reject aggression or the initiation of violence against an otherwise peaceful person. Libertarians have no prohibition against defense and wholly justify and encourage the use of force in defense of person and/or property against an aggressor.

Either everyone has to defend their own rights (anarchy), or they have to appoint a Government as the monopoly of force to defend those rights.

This is not what anarchy means. Anarchy, typically understood, is a condition where there is no overseeing body directing actions. The natural state of nature is anarchy. All voluntary human interactions are anarchist in nature. We dispense here of the 19th-20th century political connotations.

It does not follow that a "government" has to be appointed to do anything, as voluntary exchanges agreed upon by contract and enforced by social norms and pressures can, and have, handle everything.

Markets either work or they don't. There is no problem or situation that is too small or too large that voluntary exchanges based on on-the-ground knowledge held by invested actors that voluntary exchanges can't solve. Any line drawn justifying the state to do anything based on scale or complexity is arbitrary and without value. In fact, the more complex the problem and/or the larger, the less you want to rely on one single provider of a good or service like the state.

You get one point for the correct definition of the state being "a body that claims a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area."

We already have Antifa and BLM promoting anarchy, should the Government stop them, or do we all take up guns and see who is the best shot, the most aggressive fighter and the biggest gang?

Yes, it is a struggle between two rival gangs, the protesters/agitators and the state. Neither are promoting anarchy as both are vying for control of a pre-existing system. The goal of the "defund the police" movement is to not actually defund the police, but instead spend the money on what the advocates want, with them in charge of course.

If you are one of those people that believe that the state is legitimate and can actually own things, then one could argue that when an aggressor does what he does to your property, you have the right to defend that property. When kids in black masks throw bricks through the windows of State and Federal buildings, deface monuments, and blockade streets, then is it not the reasonable response to meet that aggression with defensive force? Hans-Herman Hoppe has argued something similar with regard to the immigration question, coming up with the best solution to a grossly imperfect problem in a non-free, i.e., wholly private, world. Given that taxation and appropriation of private property has been done by the state, that body, while being otherwise illegitimate, stands as a kind of caretaker due to the semi-title transfer nature of the tax payment having taken place. As such, it falls on the state to manage so-called public land, assets, and borders in trust of sorts for the rightful property owners, i.e., the taxpayers. Thus, it is in the interest of the rightful property owners, the people, for the state to enforce borders due to the social and economic effects unchecked immigration has on a society. He also argues for a sponsorship program on immigration as a way to do so, but that's a separate matter.

The question becomes, do you let the state run roughshod over a bunch of dumb kids doing the bidding of the pseudo-Marxist handlers? Do you not fear that the boot might eventually come down on your face one day?

The reason there are now so many shades of libertarianism is because it is essentially mysticism in a faux free market wrapper, so there are pink libertarians and most obviously Christian libertarians.

There are many self-styled flavors of libertarianism. If they do not begin with self-ownership, proceed through private property, and end with non-aggression, then who cares what they call themselves? Most of those other flavors don't hold to one or more of these preconditions. Libertarianism has its roots in Western Christianity, particularly the reliance on reason, the primacy and sanctity of the person/self, and rejection of aggressive violence in favor of peaceful cooperation. As Jeff Deist has commented, given that the word has been coopted, as has "liberal," it's better to use the word as an adjective and not a noun.

What should really be studied is the morality of capitalism...

Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al., have done this. Rand, too.

...in which all property is privately owned

This is kind of the definition...

and the need for that right to be protected by some form of Government, which itself cannot violate those rights, except where there is an initiation of coercive force.

This has been demonstrated time and time again to be not necessary and impossible, given the nature of the state and who makes it up.

We get that you're a Randian, but this isn't even good Randianism.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Nice post, Satch.

[Brian Jones]

Nice post, Satch.

I can't tell if I've fallen in love with Satch or if the arousal is purely sexual.

[Nockian]

That’s well argued Satch and at first read, who could argue ? But hell. For the sake of a good debate. Let’s go.

Let me begin my rebuttal on your first point that libertarianism “begins with self-ownership from which property rights are derived“. That’s a circular argument. Your argument is that property rights are derived from property rights (self ownership being property). Not valid.

I don’t want to push this any further until you can find a logical argument which supports property rights.

[Nockian]

Nice post, Satch.

Seriously ?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Seriously ?

Seriously.