For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[poptab]

And while of course the author of a blog post is not responsible for the comments readers leave, I found this one revealing: “Why does she [Borowski] rail against other women’s choices? Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good?”
Actually, no. I replied: “The core libertarian value is nonaggression. ‘Neutrality between different conceptions of the good’ has nothing to do with libertarianism. If you were truly neutral between different conceptions of the good, you wouldn’t be arguing against Julie’s conception of the good.”

Rest of the article here:
The Central Committee Has Handed Down Its Denunciation | Tom Woods

This is the video in question:
http://youtu.be/nASPjBVQkQk

 

[Liberty1911]

Note to self: Never eat blue candy prior to making a youtube video.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

“The core libertarian value is nonaggression."

Not my core value. The value is liberty. And liberty is the point. When that gets violated, aggression may be the answer.


"Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good"

With my liberty, I am free to like or not like you or your actions. So long as they do not invade my liberty, you are free to be as stupid as you wish.

 

[poptab]

“The core libertarian value is nonaggression."

Not my core value. The value is liberty. And liberty is the point. When that gets violated, aggression may be the answer.


"Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good"

With my liberty, I am free to like or not like you or your actions. So long as they do not invade my liberty, you are free to be as stupid as you wish.

He is no doubt referring to the Non-aggression Principle. He is certainly not a pacifist. This is a common misconception.

 

[mrjarrell]

“The core libertarian value is nonaggression."

Not my core value. The value is liberty. And liberty is the point. When that gets violated, aggression may be the answer.


"Surely a core libertarian value is neutrality between different conceptions of the good"

With my liberty, I am free to like or not like you or your actions. So long as they do not invade my liberty, you are free to be as stupid as you wish.

Liberty is not the core of libertarianism. The zero aggression principle is.

"Zero Aggression Principle":
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

I don't know a single libertarian who says otherwise.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What I would like to know is how the accusation of 'shaming' anyone can be made against this woman. All she said is that there is nothing 'empowering' (contrary to the leftist spiel) about screwing everything with working testicles. That's it. That is no different than saying that buying 1000 rounds of ammunition won't raise my IQ. Hardly judging anyone else's choices other perhaps than blindly following. While we are there, I was not aware that blindly following was a Libertarian principle or that calling others out for it was a violation of such a principle.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

He is no doubt referring to the Non-aggression Principle. He is certainly not a pacifist. This is a common misconception.

Yes. And not to split hairs but he is no doubt saying "the core libertarian value is non-aggression." Which is false. It is liberty. Its not "Non-aggressionism" its libertarianism.

I like Tom Woods. And Kevin Gutzman. But, people are free to dislike something whether right or wrong to do so. Just as Tom is free to do so as well.

 

[ViperJock]

The main problem with this movement is they have no clue. You vote Libertarian you have no idea what the brand gets you. IT gets you Ron Paul or Gov. Johnson, or it gets Looney toons. That was half the problem with Paul's run. The Libertarian idealists that do a lot of the promoting of the party are alienating to people who just want Liberty and fiscal responsibility.

 

[Liberty1911]

The main problem with this movement is they have no clue. You vote Libertarian you have no idea what the brand gets you. IT gets you Ron Paul or Gov. Johnson, or it gets Looney toons. That was half the problem with Paul's run. The Libertarian idealists that do a lot of the promoting of the party are alienating to people who just want Liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Well said!

The Libertarian party advocates freedom without responsibility. That automatically alienates conservatives.

 

[lucky4034]

Well said!

The Libertarian party advocates freedom without responsibility.

Can you give an example?

 

[mrjarrell]

Well said!

The Libertarian party advocates freedom without responsibility. That automatically alienates conservatives.

You keep saying that and have yet to provide anything resembling proof of your assertions. I don't know a single libertarian, party member or otherwise, who matches your spurious descriptions. The party and individual libertarian in no way match what you're saying. Quite the opposite in fact. But don't let that get in the way of a good bashing.

 

[poptab]

Yes. And not to split hairs but he is no doubt saying "the core libertarian value is non-aggression." Which is false. It is liberty. Its not "Non-aggressionism" its libertarianism.

Are you arguing semantics? Are you arguing what the definition of libertarianism is? You are welcome to define libertarianism however you want but I wouldnt expect to assume that everyone has the same definition as you. This just leads to confusion and pointless argumentation.

I like Tom Woods. And Kevin Gutzman. But, people are free to dislike something whether right or wrong to do so. Just as Tom is free to do so as well.

Where is Tom Woods saying that you cant dislike what he has to say? It was my understanding that he is saying that you can dislike the words and actions of others.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Liberty is not the core of libertarianism. The zero aggression principle is.


I don't know a single libertarian who says otherwise.

I must say that I am shocked. This is the first I have ever heard of this.

Then there must not be any real "libertarians" on this website that owns a gun as you will never use it under any circumstance. "ZERO" aggression. If someone tackles you and begins beating you then the only option is to cover up and never under any circumstances hit back. Because hitting back would be aggressive, and not defensive.

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

This is not pacifism?

" He is no doubt referring to the Non-aggression Principle. He is certainly not a pacifist."

Im not a pacifist, I just refuse to initiate force even to defend myself or anyone else for that matter for any reason whatsoever!? What?!

Any reason whatsoever clearly includes situations where someone has initiated force against me, or is clearly about to do so.

I do not know who received the appointment to the position which gave them the power to determined this to be the "core value" of everyone who believes in liberty.
This seems to have the properties of being written down on stone tablets.

Neither did I get a notice in the mail informing me to stop calling myself a word which has been redefined. Semantics. I will not be calling myself a "libertarian" anymore. My individuality prohibits it.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes. And not to split hairs but he is no doubt saying "the core libertarian value is non-aggression." Which is false. It is liberty. Its not "Non-aggressionism" its libertarianism.

Definition of LIBERTY

1
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Libertarians advocate liberty, but only up to the point at which your actions violate the liberties of another.

In my opinion, that is why 'non-aggression' is a better description of the core principle of libertarians.

 

[hornadylnl]

You keep saying that and have yet to provide anything resembling proof of your assertions. I don't know a single libertarian, party member or otherwise, who matches your spurious descriptions. The party and individual libertarian in no way match what you're saying. Quite the opposite in fact. But don't let that get in the way of a good bashing.

It's written right here on the Internet so it's true. Bon Jour.

 

[steveh_131]

This is not pacifism?

No. Here's some more webster for you:

Definition of AGGRESSION

1
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

Responding to force initiated against you is not 'aggression'. Refusing to initiate force against another is not 'pacifism'.

You need to really give a little thought to the definitions of the words you are using.

 

[mrjarrell]

I must say that I am shocked. This is the first I have ever heard of this.

Then there must not be any real "libertarians" on this website that owns a gun as you will never use it under any circumstance. "ZERO" aggression. If someone tackles you and begins beating you then the only option is to cover up and never under any circumstances hit back. Because hitting back would be aggressive, and not defensive.

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

This is not pacifism?

" He is no doubt referring to the Non-aggression Principle. He is certainly not a pacifist."

Im not a pacifist, I just refuse to initiate force even to defend myself or anyone else for that matter for any reason whatsoever!? What?!

Any reason whatsoever clearly includes situations where someone has initiated force against me, or is clearly about to do so.

I do not know who received the appointment to the position which gave them the power to determined this to be the "core value" of everyone who believes in liberty.
This seems to have the properties of being written down on stone tablets.

Neither did I get a notice in the mail informing me to stop calling myself a word which has been redefined. Semantics. I will not be calling myself a "libertarian" anymore. My individuality prohibits it.

The zero aggression principle has nothing to do with pacifism. It has to do with not initiating aggressive action. There's no mention, anywhere of pacifism. I won't hit you to make a point, but if you engage in agressive acts against me you might just end up dead. Same goes for sending others to do your business. I'd suggest you actually do some research into it, before you go off on it. Shoot, it's even on the back of every LP membership card. A definition of liberty isn't. Libertarians value liberty, but it's not the core of libertarianism, no matter how much some folks might think it is.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's written right here on the Internet so it's true. Bon Jour.

Oh, damn! I forgot rule 12....my bad.

 

[poptab]

There is no contradiction between the non aggression principle and self defense.
Self defense is consistent with the non aggression principle.

 

[lucky4034]

Anyone who "defines" themselves is pretty much a poser