The Essence of Liberty

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/essence-of-liberty.html


The Essence of Liberty

by David F. Nolan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a founder of the Libertarian Party and editor-in-chief of California Liberty, I am often asked how to tell if someone is "really" a libertarian. There are probably as many different definitions of the word "libertarian" as there are people who claim the label. These range from overly broad ("anyone who calls himself a libertarian is one") to impossibly doctrinaire ("only those who agree with every word in the party platform are truly anointed").

My own definition is that in order to be considered a libertarian, at least in the political context, an individual must adhere without compromise to five key points. Ideally, of course, we'd all be in agreement on everything. But we're not, and probably never will be. Debate is likely to continue indefinitely on such matters as abortion, foreign policy, and whether, when, and how various government programs can be discontinued or privatized. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone is sound on these five points, he/she is de facto a libertarian; if he fails on even one of the five, he isn't.

What then, are the "indispensable five" -- the points of no compromise?


YOU OWN YOURSELF

First and foremost, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period.

Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your own well-being. Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care. Most of us choose to help one another voluntarily, for a variety of reasons -- and that's as it should be -- but "forced compassion" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.


THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

Self-ownership implies the right to self-defense. Libertarians yield to no one in their support for our right as individuals to keep and bear arms. We only wish that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said "The right to self-defense being inalienable..." instead of that stuff about a "well-regulated militia". Anyone who thinks that government -- any government -- has the right to disarm its citizens is NOT a libertarian!


NO "CRIMINAL POSSESSION" LAWS

In fact, libertarians believe that individuals have the right to own and use anything- gold, guns, marijuana, sexually explicit material- so long as they do not harm others through force or the threat of force. Laws criminalizing the simple possession of anything are tailor-made for police states; it is all too easy to plant a forbidden substance in someone's home, car or pocket. Libertarians are as tough on crime- real crime- as anyone. But criminal possession laws are an affront to liberty, whatever the rhetoric used to defend them.


NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY

In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity -- i.e., an income tax -- and no libertarian supports this type of taxation.

What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.


A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM

The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.

The five points enumerated here are not a complete, comprehensive prescription for freedom... but they would take us most of the way. A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit, and which imposes no criminal penalties for the mere possession and peaceful use of anything, is one that almost all libertarians would be comfortable with.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author: David F. Nolan is a Co-Founder of the Libertarian Party and the inventor of the Nolan Chart (on which the World's Smallest Political Quiz is based). He was named one of the "2,000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century" by Cambridgeshire, the England-based International Biographical Centre (IBC) in their reference work which featured the greatest thinkers of the past 100 years. Read more about Mr. Nolan.

[Darth Tater]

Actually, the main thing a libertarian must believe is that the market will prevent or punish most unlawful activity. Politcal government needs only to legislate against those laws that cannot be enforced by the market and that legislation should only attempt to enforce negative laws (ie, laws against something) when that enforcement will not endanger the rights of an individual.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas


A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM

The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This puzzles me a bit. Everything else I agreed with.

[Bang]

I don't mind paying taxes for things we all need... like fire departments with up to date and working equipment, police, good roads, and then some things that could be considered non-essential as well, but i think are in the public's best interest such as libraries, community centers, etc.

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan


This puzzles me a bit. Everything else I agreed with.


Think of it as "he who giveth can taketh away."

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas



Think of it as "he who giveth can taketh away."

I dunno, having free floating currency on an open market would seem to me to be more "libertarian" then having it linked to something backing it.

What is the backing behind the backing though? What backed up the gold in the gold standard?

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan


I dunno, having free floating currency on an open market would seem to me to be more "libertarian" then having it linked to something backing it.

What is the backing behind the backing though? What backed up the gold in the gold standard?

Exactly. What is gold REALLY worth? Could just as easy be backed by oil, which probably has more intrinsic value than gold.

I agree with the no possession laws part. If you're only doing things to hurt yourself, the government shouldn't care.

Other stuff seems sort of anarchist.

That pesky FULL second amendment, about a WELL REGULATED militia. It's funny how no ones mentions that part, just the second half. And most of the people that pull this little trick are usually the strict constructionists.

An ideal world would have no taxes? That's a dreamland I guess, where everybody lives on their own little island. I guess libertarians are against state highways, the Military, public schools, etc? Tax on land wouldn't provide that much revenue. Sounds like part of the Unabomber's manifesto. "Just leave me be in my little cabin in the woods!"

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Joe Sick




Other stuff seems sort of anarchist.

That pesky FULL second amendment, about a WELL REGULATED militia. It's funny how no ones mentions that part, just the second half. And most of the people that pull this little trick are usually the strict constructionists.

An ideal world would have no taxes? That's a dreamland I guess, where everybody lives on their own little island. I guess libertarians are against state highways, the Military, public schools, etc? Tax on land wouldn't provide that much revenue. Sounds like part of the Unabomber's manifesto. "Just leave me be in my little cabin in the woods!"

A lot of it does sound anarchist and in an ideal world, we could be that way.

The gov't would leave you alone, and you could do whatever you pleased as long as you didn't harm anyone else.

Is that so bad? Sounds almost like the small farms and communities Jefferson envisioned

What it comes down to though in my opinion, is a belief that people can take care of people much better then some government thousands of miles away can.

And people are exactly right thinking that way

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Joe Sick

Problem is, the FOUNDERS and contemporaries WROTE about what was meant.

At the time, "regulated" meant DISCIPLINED. It has nothing to do with your Statist conception of 'regulation.'

Sorry, "well-regulated" never had ANYTHING to do with gun control laws or regulation.

Another myth based on NEW readings of the BoR rather than contemporary opinions from luminaries like Blackstone and Tench Coxe.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas
Think of it as "he who giveth can taketh away."

It's more like "he who giveth can print more of it."


But they could do that with gold backing, too.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
Joe Sick

Problem is, the FOUNDERS and contemporaries WROTE about what was meant.

At the time, "regulated" meant DISCIPLINED. It has nothing to do with your Statist conception of 'regulation.'

Sorry, "well-regulated" never had ANYTHING to do with gun control laws or regulation.

Another myth based on NEW readings of the BoR rather than contemporary opinions from luminaries like Blackstone and Tench Coxe.

Er?


Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power...to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....


Article II, Section 2: The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army, and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States....

Sounds like ‘statist regulation’ to me.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black


Er?





Sounds like �statist regulation� to me.

Ancal

None of that is 'regulation' in the sense meant today.

For one, the word 'infringed' means the same thing now as it did then. Not 'curtailed' or "limited' at all. The keep and bear arms is the part that concerns the individual citizen. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The parts you quoted are clear that government will have the power to call forth the militias to repel invasion or suppress insurrections and discipline them as needed. That is organization and command from President down to militia member.

That does not equal "Assault weapons ban," other bans and prohibitions and limitations. In fact, the militia are to be allowed whatever infantrymen are equipped with.

There's no 'gotcha' there since what I said still comports with legal contemporaries of the Constitution rather than reading-in prohibitions and restrictions that were never there in the first place.

"shall not be infringed." That is the key statement. Even in the fourth amendment there are warrants and reasonableness attached as qualfiers. No such qualifier exists in the Second.

-----------------------------------

* The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." --Tench Coxe, Delegate to Continental Congress, Oct. 21, 1787

* "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

* "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." --Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." --John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

------I'll take that lineup and their proximity to the drafting and ratifcation of the Constitution and BoR every day and twice on Sunday over your or Joe's interpretations. And I don't mean that in a disrespectful way.

[Ignatius J.]

The problem is that the whole thing has turned, in my opinion, into a farce.

The point of the second amendment is that private citizens need to be able to own tanks. They must be able to own such weaponry that the US army would be afraid to confront a citizen. The meaning is quite clear when taken in the spirit of the times and within the context of the other freedoms listed in the bill of rights.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Not quite, Ignatius.

1) There are millions of gun owners. If even 1 percent of them were actively involved in a shooting rebellion, that would outnumber the number of WILLING military and law enforcement. Obviously, such a rebellion must have popular support in a region or nationally, which would indicate widespread/justified dissatisfaction with a state or federal government.

2. The amount of former military and police that would soon compose the command structure for such a rebellion and the level of skill and dedication would make Iraq look like a a rap concert.

3. Most American troops are still not prepared to fire on Americans who are not an immediate threat to them. Police or FBI sharpshooters? Well, sadly, I think they are more "statist" in mentality than American soldiers, despite the daily contact LEOs have with civilians.

4. With a 'democratic' government(even if it evolves into something else in the future), there really would be no need for large-scale shooting war between people and government. All that would be needed, and it would be highly successful, is a campaign of assassination against key political targets. And if the citizenry is unwilling to inform on these people(if there is anyone even in the know to inform) then that hampers the opposition. This isn't Iraq or North Korea yet. even in such a future scenario, there will be much greater constraints on LEO and military than in other nations. Simply surrounding a 'rebel' town and annihilating it would backfire rapidly.

Let's just hope we don't urbanize too much. Other than short-sighted and mindless riots, urban centers are breeding grounds for passivity in the face of government abuse.

My guess is that any such conflict would actually resemble a Civil War II, rather than a militia vs. US Army scenario.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Back to the essence of liberty---I think something else is not mentioned when discussing 'criminal possession.'

In every other crime, the presence of a 'victim' and scene of a crime creates a great burden of evidence on the prosecution and diminishes(but obviously not eliminates) the possibility of corrupt frame-ups.

With criminal possession, they need not even truly establish a 'chain of custody' for your possession. This makes it way too easy to merely plant evidence or evidence of possession(scant) for police who may feel convinced they've got a 'skell' even if they don't have the evidence to convict. Of course, this endangers the truly innocent.

It also allows normal citizens with a vendetta to plant certain 'banned materials' onto an innocent man's computer or in his car or house and 'inform' on that person, thereby ruining his life and possibly falsely imprisoning him.

In the rush to 'get' those with banned substances, we are striking down every tree in the forest of law(and liberty) to get to the Devil, including no-knock raids and ignoring suspicious or partial informants who manipulate law enforcement. Now there's no tree of law(liberty) left to protect us from the Devil.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Ghost,

I wasn't looking for a "gotcha." Knowing as little about Jefferson as I do, I know that in his opinion, every man capable of bearing arms was considered “militia.” I have no problem with agreeing that the intent of the Founders was to keep arms available to every citizen. What I am questioning is the purpose behind that intent. To me, the Constitution makes it reasonably clear that, once you have arms and are thus part of the milita, what you do with those arms is controlled by the president and curtailed in large part by Congress.


Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
Back to the essence of liberty---I think something else is not mentioned when discussing 'criminal possession.'

In every other crime, the presence of a 'victim' and scene of a crime creates a great burden of evidence on the prosecution and diminishes(but obviously not eliminates) the possibility of corrupt frame-ups.

With criminal possession, they need not even truly establish a 'chain of custody' for your possession. This makes it way too easy to merely plant evidence or evidence of possession(scant) for police who may feel convinced they've got a 'skell' even if they don't have the evidence to convict. Of course, this endangers the truly innocent.

It also allows normal citizens with a vendetta to plant certain 'banned materials' onto an innocent man's computer or in his car or house and 'inform' on that person, thereby ruining his life and possibly falsely imprisoning him.

In the rush to 'get' those with banned substances, we are striking down every tree in the forest of law(and liberty) to get to the Devil, including no-knock raids and ignoring suspicious or partial informants who manipulate law enforcement. Now there's no tree of law(liberty) left to protect us from the Devil.

Agreed entirely.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black
Ghost, I wasn't looking for a "gotcha." Knowing as little about Jefferson as I do, I know that in his opinion, every man capable of bearing arms was considered “militia.” I have no problem with agreeing that the intent of the Founders was to keep arms available to every citizen. What I am questioning is the purpose behind that intent. To me, the Constitution makes it reasonably clear that, once you have arms and are thus part of the milita, what you do with those arms is controlled by the president and curtailed in large part by Congress.

Once we have arms, and are thus part of the militia, then according to the Constitution, the actions of the militia when it is acting in that capacity is to be controlled by the President and Congress, just as the actions of our military are controlled by the President and Congress. However, most (all, really) of the time, the militia is not active, but is in ready reserve.

Do not confuse our Reserves and National Guard (weekend warriors) with the militia. In the vernacular of the time, those would not be the militia, they'd instead be a part time standing army.

The unfortunate thing about the militia is that politicians have completely lost the concept. Ancalagon, you have more constitutional sense than many or most of them. And in contexts where a militia could come in really handy, like border enforcement, they not only don't use the militia the way it was intended, they call any attempt to do so "vigilante-ism". We now live in the age of lawyers, and instead of handling a problem, we now take 'em to court.

Anyway, you're right, the President and Congress do have a role in controlling the militia, when it's acting in its capacity as the militia -- not when it's sitting at home, when people are just living their lives and aren't being utilized as militia members. Actually, that's not quite true -- Congress is supposed to have a hand in organizing, arming and training the militia. But they've done precious little in that regard.

[Baculus]

A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM

The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.

Part of this is in reference to the Federal Reserve, which the Libertarian party believes it should be abolished. It also refers to the out of control practice of fractional banking, which is one reason why the value of the dollar has, and will, continue to plumment, in addition to the unconstitutional nature of the Fed.

Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve act in 1913, later felt that he had betrayed his country.

The Libertarian party is one of the few political groups willing to discuss the nature of the Federal Reserve and its abolishment.

Also, though the 2nd amendment should be protected, the Federal Government does not have to fear its citizens if apathy abounds and the populace does not question the System in their actions and their authority. We already see that happening. In some regards, they don't even have to touch the 2nd amendment to win.

But they still will try, such as the situation in California. Also, if they bow to the U.N's objective, which is to remove private ownership of firearms.

I agree with the points in this article, though it is always hard to talk in absolutes when some aspects of libertarianism is discussed.

[SnyderShrugged]

Some great posts in here guys!

I always took the second ammendment as an inhibitor to Federal abuse of power. In short, the people must always have the option to remove a tyrant (be it individual or group) via the ownership of the means to do so. Guns today, maybe something different in the far future. The simple fact that the right to bear arms is limited to firearms in political speak and we allow it, tells volumes of the true state of "liberty".