New Libertarian Political Compass

Becoming an anarcho-capitalist means rejecting non-consensual authority such as that of the state. This means that our sense of morality is no longer determined by the laws of our homeland. Usually, when one does this, they're left in a nihilistic fog of confusion for a while until they adopt a new moral framework that makes logical sense to them. I went through a messy transition phase like that as a teenager but got myself sorted out in my early twenties and have been humming along wonderfully ever since. As I mentioned in past articles, I adopted a simple moral structure based on the Nonaggression Principle (NAP), which essentially just forbids the initiation of force and fraud against other individuals. This covers the offenses we probably think of first when someone says the word "crime." Fortunately, both church and state consider such offenses to be crimes too, even though they often make convenient exceptions for themselves. This makes for a very simple moral code by which to live and it's not hard to uphold it if one so chooses.

Once we shed the social programing of our childhood and adopt this much simpler foundation, we feel pretty damn good about ourselves. We also become more sensitized to the violence perpetuated by illegitimate authority figures and we actively seek to avoid the institutions they serve and represent. We start to see people as either anarchist or statist and we naturally gravitate towards other people that share our perspective. This is where the so-called "liberty movement" comes from. At first glance, it might appear from the outside that we're all on the same page just because we all claim to uphold the NAP... but as any one of us can attest, the truth is very different. We're deeply divided on many issues and if you look for them, you can find libertarians that despise each other even more than they despise the statist authoritarians that would oppress them. There are a lot of little reasons to be found for this but two stand out above all others.

1) Application of the NAP
(who's property rights should be respected?)
We have different ideas about who's property rights ought to be respected. At one end of the spectrum, we have people that only respect the rights of law-abiding adult humans of sound mind that can enter into contracts (often referred to as full moral agents). As you move down the line, you'll find others that are willing to extend that respect to criminals, mentally handicapped people, people in comas, children, fetuses, and other non-human creatures as well in an attempt to universalize the NAP across all sentient individuals.

2) Behavioral Standards
(what actions should be promoted and what should be discouraged?)
The NAP only defines what deeds ought rightfully be considered crimes (crimes are violations of property rights, which justify defensive force). It doesn't define which ideals to strive for or what values to uphold. Nor does it define which non-criminal activities ought to be avoided and discouraged. Everyone has their pet issues but in general, we can again fit everyone on a spectrum. At one end, we find those who don't want to bother with anything other than the most minimal "bare-bones" application of the NAP without any indication of behavior preferences. At the other end of the spectrum, we have more socially conservative people who believe that for their communities to be strong and resilient, they ought to uphold standards for behavior that go well beyond the NAP. For instance, they often discourage sexual promiscuity because of how it spreads disease, complicates relationships, and results in unwanted pregnancies that produce side-effects like single-parenthood and orphanage.

With these in mind, we can craft a new political compass specifically for libertarians.

What do you think? Do you fit anywhere on this grid? How do you deal with people on opposing quadrants? Is it better to set our differences aside and try to cooperate or should we optimize our lives by sorting ourselves into tribes of more like-minded and compatible people? I'll go into my own opinions about all of this in another article but for now, I'm genuinely curious about where everyone sees themselves on the game board.