Libertarians and violence


The difference between libertarians and all the varieties of statism
In the comments to this entry, Juliaki wrote:

One interesting article to read would be a comparison between Libertarian movements and Islamic radical-based governmental movements. The two seem to have a lot in common, the only key difference being the amount of violence used to pass along the KYFHO message. Eventually the Islamic radical-based governmental movements will rely less on violence, and the Libertarian movements will rely more on violence, I have a feeling. But both have the same vision of the future regarding the role of American government.

Actually violence is the key difference between libertarian thought and almost every other political philosophy.

Despite the emphasis on gun ownership and the right to bear arms, libertarians aren't about to force their will on anyone else. I don't exactly like the idea of guns, and I have called myself a reluctant gun advocate. Libertarians may not agree on much, but they do agree on one thing. "Thou shalt not initiate force."

It is called many different things. The Non-Aggression Principle. The Libertarian Rule. At it's most basic, this is simply an extension of self-ownership. You own yourself, no one else does. You are responsible for your own defense. You can not depend on a benevolent state to do it for you, especially not if you value your freedom.

The war in Iraq has divided libertarians just as it has divided much of the United States. It all comes down to who started what when and how.

Although it is not very politically correct, I make a distinction between most Muslims and Islamists. By definition and by their own admission, an Islamist wants to establish their particular version of Islam over the entire planet.

Libertarians would prefer to be leave others alone because it is their best chance to be left alone. Since libertarians believe very strongly in self-ownership, they don't believe that anyone has the right to dictate your actions or your beliefs. With one vital exception of course. You can do what you want, so long as you don't force that choice on anyone else. "Force" being the operative word there.

Many libertarians like myself prefer the small "l" word libertarian to separate ourselves from the party. That brings up another aspect of self-ownership. I choose who I wish to associate with. Just because someone is American or Pagan or even my family doesn't mean I agree with everything that they say or do. On the other hand, there is no reason they have to associate with me either. I have to work at my friendships so I am worthy of them, and I would hope that works both ways. Associate voluntarily is the key here. If people can find a way to celebrate the similarities and accept the differences, that is going to be a pretty good friendship.

That brings us back to the things I want to stress. Islamists are a variety of statist. More openly radical than the average American variety, granted, but statists all the same. If provoked, even the "pacifistic" American version will not hesitate to force an ever expanding state. Bill Clinton, for all of his talk, armed a record number of Federal agents and ordered some of the most infamous commando raids ever undertaken against US citizens.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - September 25, 2005 at 04:14 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved