Preamble of the national Platform of the Libertarian Party
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which
all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one
is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential
precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud
must be banished from human relationships, and that only through
freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity
that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom
brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are
free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference
from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles
and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is
nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and
it is to this end that we take these stands.
Understanding The Libertarian Philosophy
An essay contributed by Joseph Knight & Matthew Richard
What is the proper role of government in a free society?
To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant
by "government." Government is the use of force. To govern means
to control. The use of force is implicit in the definition of
control Otherwise, it would be "influence" rather than control.
Even the good things that governments do involve the use of force
somewhere, somehow. Sometimes government uses force directly to
control behavior. Other times, government uses money taken by
force to fund activities which would otherwise not involve the
use of force.
Understanding that government is the use of force, the question
then becomes "What is the proper use of force in a free society?"
To answer this question, we first look at different types of force:
1. INITIAL FORCE.Ê In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion,
there is no use of force until someone uses it first. Initial
force is aggression or coercion.
2. DEFENSIVE FORCE.Ê Defensive force is the use of force to defend
your safety, rights, or property. You have the right to defend
yourself, and the right to authorize others, such as those in
government, to use defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force
is survival.
3. RETALIATORY FORCE.Ê Retaliatory Force is punishment of someone
who has initiated force. If someone assaults you, you have the
right to authorize government to punish those responsible in your
behalf. Retaliatory force is justice.
Some people have suggested a fourth category of preemptive force
but most examples of preemptive force, upon analysis, can be placed
in one of the other three categories.
Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation
of force. Some libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the
use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass
pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.
Some libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive
and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass
militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of
force.
Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE)
is the essence of libertarian philosophy. Freedom is the absence
of the initiation of force. A robber cannot be "free" to steal
your property nor can the bully be "free" to strike you. The robber
and the bully have initiated force and the condition of freedom
doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the initiation of
force. Consequently, a "right" cannot be something which must
be had at the expense of others. You have the right to free speech,
but not to compel others to provide your forum. You have the right
to earn a living, but not to compel others to provide your living.
You have the right to believe in whatever religion you choose,
but if your god requires the sacrifice of virgins, you must find
a virgin willing to be sacrificed without the initiation of force.
Libertarians apply the non-coercion principle to all human behavior.
It doesn't matter if the initiators of force are in or out of
government. Government doesn't confer some mystical right on some
to violate the rights of others. If it is wrong for a person to
commit a rape as an individual, it must be equally wrong for a
person to commit a rape as an agent of government. If somebody
takes your property without your permission, it is theft (an initiation
of force). It's theft regardless of whether the loot is used to
buy drugs or to feed the poor. It is theft regardless of whether
there is 1 thief or 20 million thieves. It is theft regardless
of whether the gang calls itself the "Sons of Satan" or "The Internal
Revenue Service".
The proper role of government (force) in a free society then,
is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force.
Government in a free society should not be the initiator of force.
Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and
fraud, are laws against the initiation of force. Enforcement of
such laws is the application of defensive and/or retaliatory force,
and is appropriate for government in a free society.
Other laws constitute an initiation of force. Government should
not initiate force to seize the property of individuals. Government
should not initiate force to compel service to the state. Government
should not initiate force to impose life-styles or moral codes.
Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your
own good."
In a free society, you have property rights. You can use honestly
acquired property in anyway that does not constitute initiation
of force or fraud, trespass on the property of others, or violate
agreements you have voluntarily entered into. You decide which
charities to support, and don't have to sacrifice your property
against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than
you.
In a free society, you have personal rights. You can live however
you want so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against
others or their property. You decide what risks to take, what
to believe in, and how to entertain yourself.
Property rights and personal rights are really the same. Personal
rights are based on property rights because you own your life,
your body, and your mind.
Ownership and the use of honestly acquired property is not in
and of itself, an initiation of force and therefore does not violate
the rights of others.
If someone owns an AK-47 and uses it to murder school children,
it is the murder that is the initiation of force, not the ownership
of the AK-47. Murder should be prohibited and punished regardless
of the weapon used. Most people who own AK-47's do not murder
school children or anybody else.
If you own or rent a sexually explicit video and commit a sexual
assault after viewing it, it is the sexual assault that is the
initiation of force, not the viewing of the video. Rape should
be prohibited whether "obscenity" is involved or not. Most people
who view sexually explicit films do not commit sexual assaults.
If someone owns and uses drugs, and steals to buy more drugs,
it is the theft that is the initiation of force. Theft should
be prohibited regardless of what the loot is spent on. The use
of drugs is not an initiation of force.
In the old days people sometimes had to answer to the church for
their crimes. Some thought they could lessen the gravity of their
offenses by claiming possession "Your Holiness, the devil made
me do it." What we often hear today is 'Your Honor, the drugs
made me do it" or "Your Honor, the Pornography made me do it"
or 'Your Honor, my unhappy childhood made me do it."
With freedom comes responsibility. If you initiate force, you
should be held fully accountable. No cop-outs, no devils, no shifting
the blame to others or to inanimate objects. If you do not initiate
force or fraud (a subtle form of force), you should be left alone
and force should not be initiated against you by government or
anybody else.
Libertarianism For A Better World
An essay
contributed by Tom Carpenter
Libertarianism
is a radical political point of view. It is the idea of maximizing
human freedom and personal responsibility and minimizing external
control over the choices people make for themselves. But, as powerful
an idea as libertarianism is, it cannot stand alone; it rests
on a moral idea. In fact, all political philosophies rest on moral
principles. For example, socialism (or statism) rests on the idea
that "Man is his brother's keeper." And, oh boy, have those statists
been keeping their brothers and sisters. They've been keeping
them in concentration camps, gulags and prison-like societies
to control them and make their lives a living hell.
What moral principle does libertarianism rest on? It rests, first
of all, on the assumption that people are capable of reason and
dignity. But, more specifically, it rests on a very powerful moral
principle. That principle is: no person (or group) has the right
to initiate force against another person (or group). A person
(or group) may legitimately use force in self-defense, but no
one -ever- has the right to initiate the use of force on any other
person.
What a simple yet powerful idea! That means, as a free person,
I ought to be able to do anything I want to -with one limitation.
I cannot do something that limits other people's equal freedom.
That means, I can listen to classical music if I want, but I have
no right to force other people to listen to my music. I can choose
to eat broccoli, but other people don't have to eat it if they
don't want to. Other people have the right to listen to acid rock
if they like, but I shouldn't have to listen to it if I don't
want to. Other people have the right to eat raw fish if they like,
but I have the right to say, "No, thanks!"
Now just what would it mean if every human being on this planet
accepted the idea that no one ever has the right to initiate force
against any other person to do something against that person's
will or free choice?
First, think of what would happen to crime. There would be no
violent crimes against people. Women would be safe from sexual
exploitation of all types. There would be no murders, no assaults,
no violent crimes in our houses or on our streets. There would
also be no property crimes. No one would break into other people's
houses, cars or businesses to steal things that were not theirs.
After all, a person's legitimate property is an extension of a
person's rights to control his or her own body.
This world without force sounds like a great thing, but it gets
even better. There are two major sources of force in our world.
One is lawless hoodlums and gangs, and the other is government,
frequently a different form of organized hoodlums and gangs.
All the violence of governments against people would stop if people
simply accepted the idea that no one could initiate force against
another person.
No one would be in jail for his or her religious, political, or
social beliefs. No one would be put in prison for reading or writing
ideas that other people don't like. No one would be put in prison
because he or she wants to use a substance that other people don't
like.
No one would have his or her earnings taken away by force or the
threat of force, either from a thug in a dark parking lot or by
forceful confiscation of part of his or her paycheck. And, if
anyone reading this doesn't think taxes are paid under the threat
of force, try going several years without paying them and see
what happens.
Government would not attempt to control what people thought and
shared. Government would not attempt to control the Internet.
Government would not force taxpayers to support some people's
tastes. It wouldn't support public radio or television, and it
wouldn't support some of the things that pass for art and culture.
If I wanted to listen to classical music on the radio, I'd have
to support it through voluntary contributions or let it flourish
through advertising and the forces of the market place. Government
wouldn't control peoples thoughts. It wouldn't force people to
attend schools, sometimes with programmed political and social
agenda. If I wanted to improve my education, I'd have to find
the right school for me and pay for my own education or get the
voluntary help of others willing to help me get through. Government
wouldn't restrict people's consumption of products, or prevent
them from using products for their health. If I wanted to use
a drug that I thought would help me fight cancer or overcome depression,
I would have the freedom and the responsibility for using it.
Government wouldn't control our money or our property. It wouldn't
tell me what crops I could plant or where I build my house or
how many doors and windows it had to have, and so on.
Libertarianism, if put into practice, gives me the freedom to
do the things I want, but it also makes me responsible for paying
my own way, through my work, my savings, or the voluntary help
of other people.
Government in such a moral society would exist for protection,
deriving its powers from the consent of those it governs, to protect
people's rights to determine their own destinies. It would protect
those who were less powerful from the control by those in a society
who were stronger and wanted to do something immoral, something
involving the initiation of force. Other than that, government
would leave me free to listen to Mozart, make broccoli casserole,
or do anything else I wanted to do with my time and resources.
This kind of a world sounds pretty good to me.
What do you think?
Freedom
of Conscience
An essay contributed by Tom Carpenter
Libertarians
believe in living in a society with the maximum amount of personal
freedom for individuals. Hence, libertarians typically believe
in respect for other people and toleration for people living different
lifestyles. The only limit on people's freedom is the similar
freedom of other individuals. No individual should ever institute
force against any other individual. Government, as the one institution
in society given the power to use force, should only use it to
protect the rights of all individuals--impartially and equally.
Given this frame of reference, how do libertarians view current
controversies about religion in the United States?
Conservatives
and liberals may talk about "freedom of religion," but thoughtful
libertarians are likely to prefer a broader term, like "freedom
of conscience." "Freedom of religion" implies that individuals
should have freedom to choose among religions. But, the term limits
the choice of a belief system to religions. "Freedom of conscience"
is a boarder term, implying that individuals have a choice of
belief system, including religions but also including other philosophical
perspectives, such as Existentialism, Pragmatism, Humanism, or
Objectivism.
Many
libertarians in the United States believe in a traditional religion
such as Christianity. Others reject traditional theism and believe
in perspectives that are agnostic or atheist. But, all libertarians
believe that individuals have the right to their own beliefs.
Not
all people in the United States, however, share a belief in freedom
and toleration. Some religious people in the United States, most
noticeably "fundamentalist" or "born again" Christians believe
that their religion is the one true point of view and that persons
who do not share their beliefs do not have the same rights as
they do. (Incidentally, fundamentalist Muslims share this same
attitude that their religion is the only one that deserves respect.)
These
fundamentalists think they are justified in imposing their beliefs
on the rest of society. They believe that their beliefs should
be a part of laws and public observations. They likely believe
that prayers expressing their beliefs should be a part of public
events, such as athletic events and graduation exercises.
Fundamentalist
Christians believe that religious symbols that are a part of their
religious system belong in public places, such as the Ten Commandments
being placed in a public court building. They are pleased to find
expressions like "under God" in the pledge to the United States
flag or expressions like "In God we trust." placed on our currency.
They argue that their religion has been such an integral part
of our past that it deserves a privileged status today.
Many
of these fundamentalists believe that non-Christians should not
have the same rights that Christians do. They may even believe
non-Christians should not hold public office, be able to adopt
children, or teach in public schools.
Because
non-fundamentalists disagree with giving fundamentalist Christians
a preferred status in society, conflicts have risen in recent
decades and are still a part of our culture today. Radio talk
shows, sermons and letters to the editor frequently appear regarding
prayer in public schools and related issues. Court cases about
religious conflicts are frequent in state and federal courts.
And frequently serious conflicts erupt among neighbors over religious
conflicts at public events.
In
order to solve these conflicts, an important distinction must
be made between public and private property and events. No one
would challenge the right of a religious group to pray as they
choose in their own church. No one would question their right
to have a prayer of their choice at a graduation ceremony of a
private school. In such instances believers are not imposing their
beliefs on other people. Believers can choose to send their children
to religious schools and be a part of a religious culture. That
is and ought to be their right.
However,
public institutions should not act so as to establish, promote,
or recognize one belief system over another. People from many
different points of view are forced to support local, state, and
the national government, so, if government is to be impartial,
it cannot use the money collected from non-believers to recognize
or support the religion of people from a different or even a majority
point of view. Government has the responsibility to treat minorities
in the same way it treats majorities.
Religious
prayers do not belong at graduation ceremonies for public schools.
The phrase "under God" does not belong in the pledge to the flag.
No reference to a deity should be printed on currency. And, the
Senate should not pay for a chaplin from public funds if that
person uses his position to represent only a Christian (or even
a religious) point of view.
There
are hundreds of thousands of churches in the United States. Every
town of any size is likely to have a Roman Catholic Church and
Protestant churches. Many towns will also have a synagogue and
a mosque. There are plenty of places for people to practice their
religious beliefs besides on public property or at public events.
The
term "separation of church and state" should be broadened to include
a separation of all personal beliefs from government. Such a separation
will lead to mutual respect, freedom and harmony among the people
of the United States.
Tom
Carpenter
June 19. 2005
