Response to Roaming Millennial's Problem with Libertarians

in anarchy •  last year 

roaming response.jpg

My response to Roaming Millennial's "Problems with Libertarians":

Before I critique, I want to first clarify that I’m not speaking to the politics of the Libertarian Party. I am not interested in discussing the circus that is the political arena because, really, the last 100 years of the Republicans and Democrats haven’t exactly lead to peace and prosperity for all when looking at the growing inflation, debt, and taxation.

Rather, I want to cut to the core principles as the principles are what matter.

And, Roaming Millennial, when you speak to principles, you downplay the nature of libertarianism in such a crude way that I cannot help but think that you did not look into what the actual tenets are.

The tenets of libertarianism are not based on some mantras of “doing whatever one wants” or being an “isolationist” who is disconnected from others. These are hyperbolic statements that do not represent the principles in any shape or form.

The principles of libertarianism are founded in self-ownership, non-aggression, and property rights.

Those concepts are precisely the ethical underpinnings that are crucial to maintain peace through consent in all human interactions.

Without a consent-based ethics foundation, you can rationalize all kinds of violence, theft, and genocide, in the name of a utilitarian greater good.

And, fittingly enough, when you downplay libertarians as just wanting to smoke weed, you ignore the very evils that have been perpetrated by government in the name of the “greater good.”

The War on Drugs is a quintessential example of how ignoring the importance of property rights in one area leads to massive harms against others.

The War on Drugs is actually the exact reason the government has been legitimized to further regulate the economy and guns!

In Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to suggest it could regulate the use of homegrown cannabis.

So you want to talk about business regulations? How about how the government gave itself the invasive ability to regulate business conducted in one’s home through the Commerce Clause BECAUSE OF the drug war.

In states where marijuana is legal, the government is denying people their second amendment rights to guns because they use marijuana, meanwhile, ignoring anyone who has dangerous prescription drugs or alcohol issues.

Those are real, material erosions of individual liberty by the state!

And not only that, literally, millions have had their lives ruined because of drug-war policies. Homes have been raided. Children stripped and attacked. Families torn apart. Patients denied medical care.

And many of these harms took place for political purposes, not even because of actual drug use.

To quote former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman,

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. Raid their homes. Break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

So when you downplay the nature of rights as to drug use, you actually ignore how government uses policy in one area to deny rights in another!

By ignoring government’s regulations in one area, you have ignored the cause of what has created the bloated government you now speak against.

Without consistent principles and a meaningful historical analysis about how government manipulates people to give up their freedoms, you will never make any meaningful change as people will continue to make exceptions and grow the state.

If you want economic freedom and gun rights, you must be aware how government strategically gets unprincipled people to conveniently compromise.

Republican or Democrat, government grows, and liberty dies, because of a lack of non-aggression virtue.

IF you want material change, you need principles. Libertarian principles. No compromises.

And these principles are something that have an impact on those around.

They make for a more peaceful and prosperous future.

pholosopher text.png


Philosophy is my core. Reason is my foundation. Phở is my sustenance.

~Connect with me :{D
∀ Facebook -
∀ Twitter -
∀ Steemit -
∀ YouTube -
∀ Instagram -
∀ Minds -

~Help me afford more Phở (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧
∀ Patreon -
∀ Crypto -
∀ Liberty Tees -
∀ More Liberty Tees -


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Brava! Brava! Well said!

Principles - first things first, people. C’mon now, we’re not children; let’s buck-up and follow the trail where it leads, not where we want it to go.

Stop placing “need” and “want” before right and wrong. That’s what maturity means. Face the truth and rise to the challenge. If you’re not willing to give up your life - no less your iphone - for freedom, you’re playing tee-ball. Get off the field and go hide in the bushes; we seek not your counsel, nor your arms.

couldn't agree more its's always about principals over preferences

"Before I critique, I want to first clarify that I’m not speaking to the politics of the Libertarian Party. I am not interested in discussing the circus that is the political arena"

As someone who has been elected into a position in the party:
Circus doesn't begin to describe it. I'm still a libertarian, and maybe still a Libertarian, but I becoming a bit disenfranchised.

Great write-up. I wish I could get my own family to understand what you just said, but hearing and understanding are very different things.

The libertarian party isn’t the party of liberty. The American Capitalist party is

No political party has liberty in mind over politics.

Republican or Democrat, government grows, and liberty dies, because of a lack of non-aggression virtue.

...or (L)ibertarian

  ·  last year (edited)

Very well put together for what should be obvious to most. Upvoted, resteemed and now following.

The problem with libertarianism is the non aggression principle. Without an objective authority to rule on what actions do & do not constitute aggression, folks would be left to make the determination themselves. This would mean a wide disparity & might ruling over right & whim ruling over reason

folks would be left to make the determination themselves.

As it stands now "folks" are left to make the determination themselves. You know who they are? Psychopathic individuals in "government."

NAP is easy, common sense, and logical. WAAAAAAYYYYY more so than the arbitrary psychopathic dictates of the state.


Property can be very clearly defined by the foundational tenet of all true libertarianism, individual self-ownership.

Gray areas and debates may come up, sure. They come up now around the nonsensical and violent laws of the state. Why not opt to deal with these "gray areas" in a philosophy not built on violence?

Look around. Do you see reason ruling over whim now? Of course not. The extant state was designed on whim, PURPOSEFULLY. Namely, the "divine right to rule."

The NAP can’t work to prevent aggression in and of itself.

A lawful authority is needed so that everyone is clear on what actions do & do not constitute aggression.

Without it folks would take it upon themselves to make that determination.

Peter believes abortion constitutes aggression, Paul doesn’t.

Peter believes intellectual property can be stolen (via aggression) while Paul doesn’t believe it’s property at all.

Do you see the problem? Those are just two examples that libertarians disagree on. Now factor in the billions of people whose views aren’t remotely libertarian: Commies, Socialists, NeoCons, Jihadists etc.

Nobody has argued that there should not be lawful organizations or rules. They should be based on ISO and not the whims of politicians. You need to do more research and reading regarding Voluntaryist philosophy, as your criticisms do not even apply to the philosophy you are attempting to question.

You can’t have competition in law & protect rights.

If you believe that you can you need to do more thinking

  ·  last year (edited)

Yes, the government we have now is far from a proper one & most of the folks running it have no interest in liberty or the rights of the individual.

That’s why we need to get rid of those folks.

If you get rid of the whole thing altogether you guarantee that might & whim will rule over right & reason

If you get rid of the whole thing altogether you guarantee that might & whim will rule over right & reason

This is an unsubstantiated, speculative claim. However, to allow open seats of power based on favors, family, and majority opinion (what government is now) and not based on sound private property grundnorms, results in what we have now:

Might and whim ruling over right and reason.

You have made no argument showing how ISO-based grundnorms result in this description. The description you make applies much more accurately to government than the lack thereof.

It is also critical to remember that voluntaryists are not against governance, but coercive, non-voluntary government violence.

I’ve backed up the claim. How do you propose to use reason to resolve a dispute among neighbors when they have different ideas about what does and does not constitute aggression?

If your neighbor steals your intellectual property and he doesn’t believe it is property (and can’t be convinced that it is) the use of force (might) is the only way to settle it.

The same applies in the case of an abortion where one party believes there’s been a murder and the other party doesn’t. There’s no way to mediate such a dispute. Again, might would rule over reason.

How do you propose to use reason to resolve a dispute among neighbors when they have different ideas about what does and does not constitute aggression?

How is this done now?

You are saying since people disagree, it is better just to stick with a system based on theft and murder, than to have courts and other such organizations in a system based on private property?

That’s an insane and dangerous perspective.

You haven’t answered my question, but I’ll answer yours.

A proper government needn’t be funded through theft.

Now, care to address how a voluntary system would address the problems I presented via right & reason instead of might & whim?

  ·  last year (edited)

The only reason might and whim rule exist now is because of government. Without government, there would be impartiality under the law. In other words all would be equal under law, and law would be based on damage to people, their property, or people failing to keep their word. There would be a victim. In a voluntary society, government would no longer be there to protect predators. People who believed in might being right would DIE and be outlaws. They would not be welcome in a peaceful and civilized society.

Just because you need a ruler does not justify or make moral you forcing one upon me.

I don’t need a ruler & am not forcing one on you.

WE do need rules to live by if our rights are to be protected.

The NAP alone cannot do that. In order for it to work, there has to be a common understanding as to what actions do & do not constitute aggression. That requires one law, since competing agencies means competing ideas about what qualifies as aggression

Aggression and what should and should not be illegal is quite easy to determine though. Is there a victim? Was person or property damaged? Was someone dishonest? No, it would not be just the NAP. I never suggested that and apologize if I did. There would be Rights Enforcement Agencies just like insurance companies today to negotiate differences between people and when a crime was committed. We do not need government court systems to make that system work either. Everyone working within the system would either be a volunteer or work for a company too without double standards or special protections under the law.

Abortion: some believe there’s a victim, others don’t.

Intellectual property theft: some believe there’s a victim, others don’t believe in intellectual property so they don’t believe there’s a victim.

Those are just two issues #libertarians disagree on. Most people aren’t libertarian & would disagree on many other things.

Do you see the problem? Prohibition of aggression is useless without agreement on what constitutes it

You can't stop abortion, but the issue of when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't does present a problem. Herbs have been used for thousands of years to auto abort a child. There's no way to stop it. I personally believe it is murder, but I'm not going to use force to stop the woman.

Nope, I do not believe in IP at all.

I'm not a "libertarian." I'm an individual liberty lover first, voluntaryist, and anarchist too. These issues could be worked out in the benefit of most people involved. Maybe the mother who wants to murder the child when the father doesn't would get rightly brought to court for her actions.

  ·  last year (edited)

Again though... these issues would be resolved in a way much superior to our current system. What we have now is a disaster and needs to be stopped.

How? How do you propose to resolve such disputes with reason instead of violence?

It does no good to agree that aggression is wrong when there can be no consensus on what constitutes aggression. That is why a lawful authority is needed.

Otherwise you’re advocating a system where might & whim must be the determinant

A lawful authority? What the fuck is that exactly? Insurance companies already do conflict resolution and mitigation between two parties. The same would be true for REA's. There is ZERO reason to have any group that is above the law and protected by double standards.