Category Archives: Libertarianism

Have you seen the viral "libertarian tip"? Someone in Missouri left a cash tip with a note explaining it was actually a personal gift and so not subject to state and federal income taxes, and wrote "taxation is theft" in the tip line on the check.

Who knows if the note is authentic? "Taxation is theft," an old libertarian bromide, has in the last year or so become a fairly popular internet meme. By some accounts, the meme wars were an important aspect of the 2016 election and its outcomeand you can expect the trend of political memes to grow. Maybe the "libertarian tip" was staged by someone who wants to promote libertarianism or encourage others to leave libertarian tips, or even just someone who wanted to play with the "taxation is theft" meme.

Nevertheless, I went out to lunch today to replicate the meme so I could give you an authentic photo of an authentic non-tip left as an untaxable personal gift. Here it is:

Reason

Some tips for you: the original photo looked like a note, not an envelope. I thought putting the money in an envelope would more clearly separate it from a tip. A note is better to show off how much you've tippedI put the money in the envelope after snapping the photo. You should probably make sure to have the change you need to give the tip you want. Asking for change from the wait staff might strengthen the case your untaxable non-tip is actually a taxable tip.

Afterward, I asked my waitress if my ploy would work. She seemed as if she wanted to tell me it would, even though she knew it didn't, because, as she explained, tips count as sales. She said that the tips that bring her wage up to the minimum wage (waiters and waitresses are generally exempt from minimum wage laws under the assumption tips get them to at least the minimum wage) get taxe like income, and that "40 to 50 percent" of tips beyond that get declared.

The intersection of libertarianism and wait staff is not new. During the 2012 election, then Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a Republican presidential candidate, became an "unlikely hero" (the New York Post's words) to wait staff for his efforts to pass the Tax Free Tips Act. In 2013, The New Yorker appeared to discover and bemoan that wait staff were hiding tips from the taxman. The horror.

Meanwhile, wait staff are also among workers most negatively impacted by higher minimum wagesthey are often asked to do more work as restaurants look to mitigate the costs of a higher minimum wage in an already low-margin business. Just last month, Eric Boehm reported that San Diego had lost 4,000 restaurant jobs in the year-plus since they raised their minimum wage at an even faster pace than the state, which has so far only seen a slowdown in the growth of restaurant jobs.

And while we're so directly on the "taxation is theft" topic, here's one of my favorite chyrons ever on FreedomWatch with Judge Napolitano, a show I produced for. Thanks go to Media Matters for preserving the screen cap:

Fox Business

Read more:
I Gave My Waitress a 'Libertarian Tip': Taxation Is Theft! - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

Libertarians and anarchists often get challenged with an annoying question, Warren Redlich, theCEO of Independent Political Report and a former Libertarian Party candidate, recently wrote: Iflibertarianism is so great, why hasnt any country tried it?[1]

There is no doubt that the question has been asked often, andthat it is meant to be annoying.Consider the source: Michael Lind. Lind, for those who have never heard of him, is a writer for theNew America Foundation who has achieved some online notoriety as a professional anti-libertarian. (Agoogle search on Lind libertarianism turns up more than 100,000 hits.)

Lind first came to myattention when he proclaimed the collapse of libertarianism as a political force back inNovember 2007 just in time for the birth of the Ron Paul Revolution.[2] In fact, though, he washeralding the utter and final defeat of the libertarian counter-revolution. before that,[3]and he has continued to do so since: most recently in 2015, when he pontificated that thelibertarian moment [Rand Paul] symbolized is over.[4] (To be fair, he also pontificated inhis2015 article that There was never a libertarian moment in the United States which gets onewondering just what keeps collapsing.)

But constantly heralding the end of something that never existed in the first place must getboring after a while; so in 2013 Lind came up with a new angle: the above question, smugly packaged asThe Question Libertarians Just Cant Answer.[5] That had such a great reception thatLind followed it up within days with two more articles with equally-revealing titles, Why Libertariansare Basically Cult Members[6] and Grow Up, Libertarians![7]

Given this genesis, there is no wonder that anti-libertarians ask the question often, and thatthey do so mainly to annoy libertarians. But there is really nothing annoying about the questionitself. The absence of libertarian countries is a phenomenon in need of an explanation, andtrying to provide one could shed some light on little-explored areas of political theory. So itis worth attempting an answer.

It also worth looking at Linds answers; for indeed, he gives us not one but two. Hisfirst answer is not explicitly stated, but implicity smuggled into the way he phrases and rephrases his question. In his article he asks that question five times. The first instance is purely neutral: Whyare there no libertarian countries? but not so his reiterations:

If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modernsociety, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century isorganized along libertarian lines? If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldnt at least onecountry have tried it? Why isnt libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarianregimes in the real world? If libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasntany country anywhere in the world ever tried it?[8]

Such formulations seem designed to suggest their own answers: There are no libertarian countriesbecause libertarianism is not plausible it is discredited it is not a good idea andlibertarians just do not understand how to organize a modern society.

However, Lind cannot just keep repeating and rephrasing the same question. Some people may be tooobtuse to grasp those implications, no matter how often he makes them. Still others may beintelligent enough to see logical problems with the implications themselves:

Obviously, this is a silly, fallacious pattern of argument. Every good idea was at one pointuntried. A hypothesis that has not been tested is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed. One mayreasonably complain that a hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But it is simply bizarre to maintain thata hypothesis might be discredited because it has yet to be tested, because it is so far neitherfalsified nor confirmed. Such a principle would entail the absurdity that all hypotheses werediscredited at the dawn of time.[9]

So Lind also needs to provide a substantive answer to his own question. Which indeed he does: Onhis account, there is a significant trade-off between less government and more nationalinsecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among otherthings. Those other things including human survival itself: Economic liberty comes at a pricein human survival, it would seem. There must be no libertarian countries, then, because nocountry wants to pay that price in human survival.

But if there are no libertarian countries, what is Linds evidence that one would come with allthis nastiness? Fortunately for his research project, the free-market right has been rankingcountries according to economic freedom for years. Using one such ranking the 2013 one fromthe Heritage Foundation[10] Lind attempts to prove his trade-off theory.

His technique is to compare two points on the list. On the one hand, he looks atthe mature, well-established industrial democracies, with the U.S. as representative. But none of these countries, includingthe U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Considering how often Lind points out the lack oflibertarian paradises, that does not exactly come as a surprise.

And then there is Mauritius. According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economicfreedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa.At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economicliberty at least Mauritius is economically free!

Comparing the U.S. and Mauritius, Lind illustrates his purported trade-offs: the U.S. has aliteracy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 livebirths compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S.

Never mind that back in 1980 (when it ranked only 68 on the Heritage list) Mauritius had aninfant mortality rate 3 times higher.[11] For Lind, the U.S.-Mauritius comparison is clear proofthat more economic freedom means more infant mortality (not to mention more maternal mortalityand less literacy).

There are five problems for his proof method, though: the five countries at the top of his list Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland the only countries the HeritageFoundation ranks as economically free. (Both the U.S. and Mauritius are ranked almost free).Using Google searches, I was able to find comparable statistics for all five; and what I foundwas indeed shocking:

The last four have literacy rates ranging from 97% to 99%: below the U.S., but well ahead ofMauritius. Their infant mortality rates (per thousand) range from 4.5 deaths (for Switzerland) to2 (for Singapore), and their maternal mortality rates (per thousand) from 11 (for New Zealand) to5 (for Switzerland) well ahead of both the less-free U.S. and less-free Mauritius. No evidenceof any significant trade-off there.

And then there is Hong Kong, at the top of the Heritage list. If Linds theory is correct, thenliteracy should be way down in Hong Kong, and both infant and maternal morality way up. Literacyis in fact down (though still above Mauritius), at 93%; but so are infant mortality (at 1.5 per1,000 births) and maternal mortality (1.6 per 1,000). No sign of any significant trade-offthere, either.

Lind deals with these apparent counter-examples by claiming that they should not count,because the Heritage Foundation rankings the very ones he relies on are biased. Hong Kong andSingapore do not count because they have small geographic areas the first is a city and thesecond a city-state yet Mauritius does, though it is only 2000 km in size. Australia andNew Zealand do not count because they are low-population countries yet Mauritius does,although its population is slightly above 1 million. Furthermore, four out of the top five weresmall British overseas colonies (so was Mauritius) that depended for protection first on theBritish empire and now on the United States (as does Mauritius, home of the Diego Garciaairbase).

And what of Switzerland, to which none of the above objections apply? According to Lind, it shouldnot count either, because wait for it Switzerland might not have maintained its independencefor long if Nazi Germany had won World War II. Really.

Despite Linds attempt to rule out all the evidence against histrade-off theory, it isreasonable to conclude that he has not proved it, and that the examples he picked to prove it were in factcherry-picked. But if his trade-off theory is unproved, it makes no sense to think that anynation (much less every nation) subscribes to it, and that that explains why none of them arelibertarian. So we should look elsewhere for an answer.

So why are there no libertarian countries? A libertarian might say it is because:

(1) Contrary to Linds initial assumption (which he puts in the mouth of libertarians), no oneactually organizes a modern society. Great societies are what Hayek calls spontaneous or polycentric orders not unplanned, but not conforming to any one plan, either; insteadsubject to a myriad of conflicting plans, by a myriad of different interest groups. Some of thosegroups goals can be libertarian, some the opposite (let us label those totalitarian).Consequently, one would expect any existing political system to contain a mixture of bothlibertarian and totalitarian elements.

(2) The most influential interest groups would be the most powerful, or, in otherwords, those that benefit most from the existing system; which means that each would have abuilt-in conservative bias conservative not in the sense of wanting less government, but in the senseof wanting to preserve the status quo and that the political system would reflect this bias. Changes ineither a libertarian or totalitarian direction would, then, happen slowly and incrementally, atthe margins.

(3) Political change is implemented by governments, and can be effected only through governmentpower. Libertarianism has an understandable bias against those who use government power for theirown ends, and vice versa. A government might adopt certain libertarian policies for its owninterests such as cutting tax rates to increase tax revenue, or repealing a universally-detested law for the sake of civil order but it is unreasonable to imagine any government reducingitspower just for the sake of doing so. Besides the already-noted conservative bias, then, one wouldexpect political systems to have a built-in totalitarian bias.

(4) The notable counter-examples to (2) radical changes in a society are those imposed bymilitary force; and, in light of (3), it strains belief to imagine a libertarian society beingimposed that way. While waging a war may accomplish some libertarian ends ending slavery in theU.S. is an example the very act of fighting one serves only to accentuate the already-notedtotalitarian bias.

In light of the above, one would expect to find no pure libertarian political systems. Then again, in light of the first two points, one would expect to find few, if any, pure ideologicalsystems of any kind and that expectation would be correct.

The Scandinavian role models ofsocial democracy that Lind invokes, for example, are hardly exemplars of pure socialism: whilegovernments share of GDP is higher there than in the Heritage Foundations economically freecountries, it comes nowhere near 100%. One of those role models, Denmark, actually ranks higherthan the U.S. (and just behind Mauritius) on the very Heritage Foundation list that Lind relies on; something that he either did not notice or did not see fit to mention.

Besides, one cannot help adding, Scandinavia might not have maintained its independence for longif Nazi Germany had won World War II.

What one would expect to see and what one does see, all over the world are mixed systems:countries with a mixture of libertarian and totalitarian policies, some more libertarian, somemore totalitarian, most probably more totalitarian than libertarian, but never purely one or theother.

There is, though, one notable counter-example to my last statement: totalitarian communism. There certainly have been totalitarian communist regimes in the real world. Most of those, too, asLind concedes, have been imperfect models, but somehave comevery close indeed tototalitarian perfection: Stalinist Russia,China under the Red Guard, Pol Pots Cambodia, and NorthKorea.

While Lind claims that the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of theMarxist-Leninist countries, (presumably referring to the non-existence of most of those regimes today),the reality is that at least one of them, North Korea, is still going strong in the 21st century.

Like it or hate it, North Korea does look like an example of pure totalitarianism: a political system inwhich libertarian elementsare completely absent. In which case, any theory attempting to explainthe absence of libertarian regimes in todays world should also be able to account for thepresence of totalitarian regimes. That proves no insuperable problem for my theory North Koreais an example of (4), a regime imposed and maintained solely by military force but it does seemto do so for Linds.

For one thing, North Korea gives precious little evidence to support his trade-off theory.North Korea, as expected, ranks last on the Heritage Foundation list, meaning that by Linds theory literacyshould be high there, and infant and maternal morality low. The country does boastan incredibly high 100% literacy rate not one illiterate in the entire country. But its infant and maternalmortality rates (22 and 82 deaths per 1,000 births, respectively) are higher even than those ofLinds cherry-picked paradigm of economic freedom, Mauritius.

For another, the example of a purely totalitarian regime in the 21st century also poses a problemfor Linds implicit answer to his question (the one smuggled into itsvarious iterations). Forif the criterion of an ideologys correctness, goodness, plausibility, etc., is whether or not itis adopted in the real world, one would have to count totalitarian communism a ringing success onall counts.

So let us rephrase Linds questions, and ask them right back at him in turn:

If totalitarian communists are wrong in claiming that they understand how best to organize amodern society, how is it that a country in the world in the early twenty-first century isorganized along totalitarian communist lines? If totalitarian communism was not a good idea,wouldnt there be no countries that ever tried it (much less continue to try it)? Why isnttotalitarian communism vindicated by the presence of totalitarian communist regimes in the realworld? If totalitarian communism is not only implausible but unappealing, why are countriestrying it?

I have no doubt that Lind will be able to answer those questions, though not without changing hiscriterion of what makes a political ideology correct, good, plausible, and appealing. So I lookforward to seeing his answers.

Photo Michael Lind in 2015. Photo by D.W. Taylor. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

[1] Warren Redlich, Was America Ever Libertarian?, Independent Political Report, April 25,2017. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/was-america-ever-libertarian/#comment-1589317

[2] Michael Lind (2007), The Centre-Grounds Shift to the Left, Financial Times, November 27,2007. https://www.ft.com/content/4afdfafe-9cf7-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac

[3] Lind (2006), The Unmourned End of Libertarian Politics, Financial Times, August 16, 2006. https://www.ft.com/content/2333b794-2d4e-11db-851d-0000779e2340

[4] Lind (2015), The False Rise and Fall of Rand Paul, Politico, October 20, 2015. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/rand-paul-2016-libertarianism-213265

[5] Lind (2013a), The Question libertarians Just Cant Answer. Salon, June 4, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

[6] Lind (2013b), Why Libertarians are Basically Cult Members, AlterNet, June 11, 2013. http://www.alternet.org/economy/libertarians-are-cult-members?akid=10559.113011.rcc3cH&rd=1&src=newsletter853683&t=9

[7] Lind (2013c), Grow Up, Libertarians!, Salon, June 13, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/

[8] Quotations in italics are from Lind (2013a).

[9] Will Wilkinson, Michael Linds bad argument against anything, The Economist, June 6, 2013. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/libertarianism-and-experiment

[10] Index of Economic Freedom, Wikipedia, April 11, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[11] Ronald Bailey, Michael Linds Obtuse Attack on Liberty and Libertarianism, Reason, June 7,2013. http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/07/michael-linds-obtuse-attack-on-liberty-a

The Question Libertarians CAN Answer!

Read the original:
Why are there no libertarian countries? - Nolan Chart LLC

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education, the Pope said in an message sent to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences meeting in the Vatican and subsequently shared with Breitbart News.

A common characteristic of this fallacious paradigm is that it minimizes the common good, that is the idea of living well or the good life in the communitarian framework, Francis said, while at the same time exalting a selfish ideal.

Members of the Pontifical Academy are currently engaged in a workshop bearing the title Towards a Participatory Society: New Roads to Social and Cultural Integration, which began Friday and will run through May 2.

Francis said that libertarianism, which is so fashionable today, is a more radical form of the individualism that asserts that only the individual gives value to things and to interpersonal relations and therefore only the individual decides what is good and what is evil.

Libertarianism, he said, preaches that the idea of self-causation is necessary to ground freedom and individual responsibility.

Thus, the libertarian individual denies the value of the common good, the pontiff stated, because on the one hand he supposes that the very idea of common means the constriction of at least some individuals, and on the other hand that the notion of good deprives freedom of its essence.

Libertarianism, he continued, is an antisocial radicalization of individualism, which leads to the conclusion that everyone has the right to extend himself as far as his abilities allow him even at the cost of the exclusion and marginalization of the more vulnerable majority.

According to this mentality, all relationships that create ties must be eliminated, the Pope suggested, since they would limit freedom. In this way, only by living independently of others, of the common good, and even God himself, can a person be free, he said.

This isnt the first time that the Pope has taken issue with popular social and political trends.

In March, Pope Francis told leaders of the European Union that the populist movements that are sweeping many parts of Europe and other areas are fueled by egotism.

Populism, he said, is the fruit of an egotism that hems people in and prevents them from overcoming and looking beyond their own narrow vision.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter

Go here to read the rest:
Pope Francis Warns Against 'Invasion' of Libertarianism - Breitbart News

CUMMING -- Radio host Monica Perez gave some local Tea Party members a lesson in libertarianism this week.

On Monday, the United Tea Party of Georgia welcomed Perez, who hosts a radio show on WSB and is a self-described anarcho-capitalist, a political philosophy she described as extremely libertarian.

I really am a radical Libertarian, Ive absolutely lost all faith in at least the federal government, Perez said. I really think they work against our interests for their own interests, like truly go out of their way to reduce our fiscal and physical security because thats their bread and butter.

Throughout the evening, Perez took questions from the ultra-conservative group, including some issues the group might not favor, such as her opinion of President Donald Trump.

I was always skeptical about Trump and felt, actually, that it was the establishments way to control the Tea Party and libertarians, so people who were desperate to restore the foundational laws of this country, she said.

However, Perez said she did not vote for the Libertarian candidates in November and was not a member of the Libertarian Party.

They were fake, she said. Libertarianism is individual responsibility and personal freedom on all issues at all time it is not fiscal conservatism or social liberalism; thats not what it is.

Also present at the event was District 24 state Rep. Sheri Gilligan, who answered a question about getting more involved in politics by recommending people get involved locally and never staying quiet by their beliefs.

We keep focusing on Congress. We keep focusing on Trump, and we act like everything is up there. By golly, its right here in Forsyth County and its right here in the state of Georgia, she said. As much as I love where I live, I would be really ridiculous to say we are clean and we have no problems and we dont want bigger government issues and answers here in Georgia.

The meeting was the first to be a joint meeting of the Forsyth County Tea Party and the United Tea Party of Georgia, which also holds events in Buford and Lawrenceville, and drew a larger crowd than most meetings.

The group meets on the last Monday of each month at 7 p.m. at VFW Post 9173 at 1045 Dahlonega Highway.

Read the rest here:
Tea Party in Forsyth welcomes Libertarian radio host - Forsyth County News Online

Forbes

Libertarianism Needs To Become More Realistic - Forbes Forbes For libertarianism to become more influential it has to become more realistic. A major impediment is that too many libertarians imagine a radical vision of society ... Why Foreign Policy Trips Up LibertariansBeing Libertarian all 2 news articles »

See more here:
Libertarianism Needs To Become More Realistic - Forbes - Forbes

Forbes

Libertarianism Needs To Become More Realistic Forbes Libertarianism is important, and I want it to be more influential. For it to do this though it has to become more realistic. I believe a major impediment is that many -though not all- libertarians imagine a vision of society that the vast majority of ... Why Foreign Policy Trips Up LibertariansBeing Libertarian all 2 news articles »

See the original post:
Libertarianism Needs To Become More Realistic - Forbes

The United States Libertarian Party is a strange beast. It has a wide following within the movement and is comfortably the countrys third largest party. Yet, its had little meaningful electoral success in the decades of its existence. Smaller parties in other countries, with far less widespread support have managed to convert their core base into electoral breakthrough; so, what is causing this failure in the Libertarian Party?

Part of the problem is the dual mandate the party has given itself to both compete in elections and be an educator on libertarian principles and policy.

A political party, by its nature, is distinct from any think tank, club, or foundation, because it is designed to engage directly in the political process and fight real campaigns. An additional mandate to educate the public is fine to have, but that mandate should not alter the unique position and role the party has, as a political agent.

The Libertarian Party must take up its unique position in the libertarian movement and do all that is necessary to professionalize its messaging and organizational strategies to be competitive in the political sphere.

If the party truly believes that its platform, if enacted, would make the country and the world better, then it has an obligation to fight for this enactment; If its going to happen, we need to rethink how we approach both the electoral and educational mandates.

We need to focus less on making statements or proving points, and more on convincing people in their hearts. This will require a fundamental reevaluation of the way libertarians (in the party or otherwise) spread the message to those not yet convinced.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement more broadly, must think in terms of how to convince people.

Too often we get caught up in internal factionalism and disagreements on philosophy. Worse still, libertarians often become dogmatically attached to notions they determine to be axiomatically true; such as the claim that taxation is theft, or that the non-aggression principle is an a priori moral absolute. While libertarians may be convinced of these principles and may even consider them intuitively self-evident that is not the case for society at large. They need to be convinced of these principles.

The problem is that libertarians usually fail to engage skeptics in a way that could potentially convert them to our way of thinking.

Because we are convinced of the axiomatic truth of our beliefs, we treat opponents like they are wrong, ignorant, or even morally perverse. This attitude throws up a barrier between the libertarian and the skeptic, that, once raised, is very hard to break down.

We are a long way from a libertarian world because not enough people have adopted the libertarian mindset. We need to change those minds before we can meaningfully change society. Libertarianism can only succeed if it reconciles all its sides and factions purist, radical, pragmatic, or whatever other sub-label a group chooses. This squaring of the circle can only begin when we start to think about messaging as a unifying, rather than a divisive, exercise. The Libertarian Party and other libertarian organizations should look toward exploring the effects of their messaging strategies, and to refashion them to engage outsiders.

This is not a matter of abandoning our principles or beliefs. It is a matter of understanding how people think and how they respond emotionally and psychologically to new, and often radical, ideas. We need to understand how people think and feel, and talk to them like human beings. Maybe then well at last begin to see the world we want to live in take shape.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Read more:
The Right Engle: How to Talk to Non-Libertarians - Being Libertarian

It is an unfortunate truth that, as the liberty movement gains traction in the political arena and becomes more diverse, we are going to face our fair share of hurdles when it comes to ideological differences on some hot-button issues. Issues such as drug use and the legality and acceptance of abortion have plagued the party in recent days. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and if we in the liberty movement want to continue to gain traction and stay relevant, then we must address the proverbial elephant in the room.

Addressing the division within the movement will be no easy task. Many of us have very deep-seated moral objections against allowing certain actions in a libertarian society, and each of us are entitled to our individual opinions on the subject. The division happens when we try to find the one truly libertarian stance on any one of these issues. Considering that, libertarianism values individual freedom highly and is comprised of such a diverse group of individuals, it can be assumed with relative certainty that we will never find a singular libertarian position.

What can be done about this division? How can we address these issues and not look like the dysfunctional laughing stock of American politics? We obviously cant simply sweep these issues under the rug or ignore them; eventually they will need to be addressed. What I propose is a plan where we return to the basics. We all joined this movement for a reason and we all did so of our own free will. The Libertarian Party is driven on principle, rather than politics. What this means is that, we as libertarians are not driven by a desire for political power or position, nor are we interested in forcing our views of morality on others. We are driven by the idea of liberty and non-aggression.

While the issues are important and should be addressed, they are not the foundation on which the Libertarian Party is laid. The core principles of liberty and non-aggression must be first and foremost in the mind of any libertarian that wishes to attract more people to this movement, and thus make an impact on society. Constant infighting and purity tests not only further the divide between libertarians, but also serve to deter some would-be libertarians from wishing to be involved in such a tumultuous party.

Libertarianism is not an exact science, and I dont claim to have all the answers on what should be done about the issues we face today. However, I do believe that my proposal can help to quell the intensity of the infighting amongst us. These issues must be approached in a liberty-first mindset, and we as libertarians have to accept that not everyone thinks like we do. That fact alone does not make them more or less libertarian than anyone else, so long as they believe in non-aggression and individual liberty. United on those two guiding principles, we can move forward and change this country, and possibly even the world.

In short, its time for us as libertarians to remember why were here. We are united under the basic premise that good ideas dont require force, especially government force. Be the change you want to see in the liberty movement and society. Stop trying to force other libertarians to conform to your idea of what libertarianism is, just as we want the powers that be to stop forcing their respective ideas and plans for society on us, their constituents.

Image Source

Corey Todd was born and raised in Lakeland, Florida. He is still new to the movement and currently on active duty in the United States Marine Corps. The views expressed in his article are his own personal views and not those held by the USMC, Dept. of the Navy, or DOD.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
A Liberty Movement, Divided Against Itself, Cannot Stand - Being Libertarian

Jacob Brittons latest attempt at political debate begins, It was onlya matter of time Indeed, I suppose it was. I cant help but feel that thefirst paragraph of Brittons latest foray into the wide world of politicaleconomy is symptomatic of the bizarre way the right behaves on collegecampuses: They seem fixated on producing disagreement and then howlwith joy and roll around in the mud when they find it (Positive Rights, NotCapitalism, Require State Violence, The Oberlin Review, April 14). Brittonhilariously echoes the meme so much for the tolerant left by accusingme of failing to live up to the lefts benign reputation for the record, Ihave no interest in treating libertarianism benignly in the public sphere.

Britton attempts to make a coherent case for a minimal state by distinguishingbetween what he calls positive and negative rights, an argumentthat is more familiar to the Western philosophical canon as IsaiahBerlins distinction between positive and negative liberty. Positive libertyis affirmative the freedom to act as opposed to negative liberty, whichis freedom from coercive forces. Britton argues that I advocate for the former,while a just state protects only the latter. In his view, negative libertycan be secured without coercive activity on the part of the state becauseit is a natural right. This is absolutely historically and empirically false.Negative liberty even understood in its most limited dimension, for instance,as the freedom to practice any religion always requires a stateapparatus equipped with police and a military ready to defend that right(heard of Europes 30 Year War?). No liberty is simply pre-given, found innature; every right requires violence and coercion behind it to succeed institutionally,and so any distinction Britton hopes to secure between negativeand positive rights on the grounds of naturalness is arbitrary.

Funnily, its not quite totally arbitrary Britton does seem to haveone criterium, to distinguish between positive and negative rights. Everyfreedom Britton associates with positive rights are freedoms the workingclass needs to resist domination. Strange coincidence it is almost as iflibertarianisms talk of human rights is designed to be a defense of capitaland not humans.

Britton says capitalism is not inherently violent because the divisionof labor ensures everyone will have a job. Not only does Adam Smithsconcept of the division of labor have very little to do with the question offull employment, but Smith himself saw a need for state intervention tohelp capital function. Further, Karl Marx demonstrated that the unemployedare a benefit to capital; its only by having an unemployed workerto replace your currently employed worker that you can push your employeeswages down as far as possible. Unemployment is as old as capitalism.Rather than acting as though unemployment is a weird fluke, weshould live up to that reality and challenge the paradigm that reproducesit.

Finally, the big question: Why, oh why, dothose merciless lefties want to violently coercemulti-billionaires to give up their hard-earnedcash? Or, as Britton puts it: If Bill Gates hasa net worth of $80 billion and my net worth is$90,000, what moral atrocity has been committed?Let me explain. Gates made his fortune bygrowing his company Microsoft. That companymakes money by selling computer software,among other things. In order for people to buycomputer software, they have to own computers.In order for them to own computers, someonehas to make the computer. The person whomakes the computer is typically a worker livingin gross poverty in the global south. This workercontracts with a capitalist to trade their laborfor money. If this were a fair exchange, by theend of it, the worker would have money and theboss would have a commodity. In reality, by theend of the exchange, the worker has money andthe boss has a commodity and profit. The profitis the difference in value between the amountof money the boss can get away with paying theworker and the amount of money he can sell thecommodity for. So yes, Gates wealth depends onmoral atrocities, and the working class povertyis proof.

Libertarianism is a weird ideology. It stringstogether a bizarre understanding of politicaleconomy and moral philosophy and forms a pasticheof entrepreneurial individualism and abstractmusings about rights and the legitimatestate. In the end though, with its incoherence,internal inconsistencies and empirical failuresput aside, libertarianism should be measuredin terms of its effects. And its primary effect isto perpetuate a capitalist regime that is builtoff of exploitation. Capitalism is a machine forchanging hopes and dreams into toil and suffering.Libertarianism is ultimately just an abstractweapon, an ideological gear in a larger machineused by the few to dominate the many.

View original post here:
Libertarian Ideology Protects Capital at Workers' Expense - The Oberlin Review

For a very long time (far too long, frankly), I completely accepted the phrase taxation is theft as an axiom. Despite the fact that I had never really thought the whole process of taxation through, I trusted the reasoning given by many people I respected: if its your money, and its taken from you involuntarily via threat of force, its theft. I mean, what else could it be?

Anyone who realizes that the social contract postulation didnt end with Hobbes, and that modern interpretations of the concept do in fact allow for classical liberalism to still make sense alongside it, already realize that this issue is up for interpretation. The world (as well as the processes within it that make societies sustainable, functioning places) is far more nuanced than libertarians give it credit for, and the liberty movement suffers as a result.

What interpretation is out there that takes this aforementioned nuance into account? Lets work up to it by examining what the actual process of taxation entails:

You work your ass off, then the government forces you through laws enforced by government agents to cough up a certain percentage and give it to Uncle Sam. Now, heres the interesting part: you do get a return on your investment. Granted, its a forced investment, and the returns you get back may not always be what you particularly endorsed or asked for, but you do get something back. Therefore, by definition, taxation is not theft. And when libertarians go around claiming that it is all the time, it harms the movement. Why? Because as a growing activist movement we wantneedintellectuals on our side. People who are smart, eloquent, savvy, and educated. People with influence. People with respected professions and public visibility (the good kind, of course). And the cold, hard truth of the matter is that smart people already know that taxation is not theft, and calling it theft (especially going so far as to compare it to outright armed robbery) will only continue to deter those who actually know how taxation works.

But thats okay, because what taxation actually amounts to is something much worse when put under the microscope: extortion. Extortion as a buzzword has an enormous advantage over theft, not only because it is actually true, but because extortion is equally unpleasant to all political stripes, even the most tax-loving, free-college-seeking, entitled liberals. Who wants to be threatened into paying into something inefficient and wasteful that only benefits you some of the time? Who wants to be coerced into financially supporting what one might see as an unjust cause? Nobody. How many liberals would leap at the chance to shout taxation is extortion! right alongside a libertarian? Quite a few. Such a common cause could really help convert some to our side and help grow the movement.

Also, from a sheer rhetorical standpoint, misguided libertarians sticking to the theft claim is just not a very exciting rallying cry. Complaining about taxation for selfish-sounding reasons (its theft; the government stole my money!) vs. altruistic-sounding reasons (its extortion; we are all being forced to pay into a system that gives dismal returns and funds a lot of harmful policies!) is not a good strategy if what we are after is growth.

But instead, as usual, many libertarians choose to dig in their heels and stay stuck in their ways. Calling taxation theft probably seems a lot edgier, and saying anything less is surely considered a statist perspective by many in the liberty movement, but the reality is undeniable: the best potential allies to libertarianism are not going to be taken in by this vacuous phrase. The best potential allies to libertarianism are already wise enough to see right through it.

Image: Shutterstock

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read this article:
Taxation Isn't Theft & That Hashtag Doesn't Make You Edgy - Being Libertarian