I looked at the publications on this site and when I came to Murray N. Rothbard's "The ethics of liberty" I went out and bought my own copy.
I am new to "knowing" that I am really a libertarian and now that I know, it is a big load off my mind as I was beginning to feel I was alone in the world!
If anyone here could write a 2,000 word essay on what Libertarianism is" and keep it simple, writing for the less literate person, I would be pleased to use my printing and publishing skills to make a PDF, using illustrations, "break-outs" and print it in two columns (easier to scan without moving one's eyes), so that we all have something short and simple to send out to all the people we know.
The reason why I would like something like this "out there" is because, in Europe, unlike America, we don't have a libertarian party and most people wouldn't know what one is, if it came and bit them on the nose! There must be hundreds of thousands of people who, like me, did not know (a) what Libertarian means and (b) that they are, in fact, a libertarian.
If there is nobody to help me, then I could do this myself. However it would have to be in 2009 as I need to know so much more about this before I could write about it thoroughly.
Remember, 2,000 words - a few eeks work for someone who has no deep knowledge of the subject, but ONLY a couple of hours work for someone who has all the knowledge at their fingertips.
Help me, to help others, to help you.
Ampers.
Why not just link to articles by one of the many libertarian institutions out there?
Yes, I had thought of that, but this needs to be aimed at creating enthusiasm for the reader to take specific action and to fire him up to the possibilities of this new political thinking.
There are many articles out there, but they all address one of the "threads" of Libertarianism. This article needs to encapsulate the overal picture of what a Libertarian thinks, feels and stands for.
But thanks for your interest and if you do manage to come across such an article - I have looked - I would be grateful for a link to it.
My aplogies for the missing "w" in my seed message.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that libertarianism has a strong intellectual background in Europe...
I see. Are you saying this is only for intellectual members? I was thinking more of attracting the rank and file. I would be very disappointed if this turns out to be another cosy private club. I had really no idea of what a Libertarian was until a few weeks ago, and found I had been one all my life.
I left school before I was fifteen and cannot call myself an intellectual in any way. If you feel that you can win everyone over to your way without appealing to the "man in the street" then, to use an Americanism, "I'm outta here".
Ampers
Yes, someone sent me a link to Chapter fifteen of his book "The ethics of Liberty" and immediately after I read it, I ordered his book. The Introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe was almost unreadable for me, but the writings of Murray N. Rothbard, written evidently by an extremely clever and educated man, was very cleat and easy to read. There may well be lots of libertarian groups in Continental Europe (what we British refer to as mainland Europe) but in this country, there seems to be very little knowledge about this subject.
I am thinking that if Dr Paul wins the Republical Nomination next year, it will mean a lot of people will want to know more about this. And although "The Ethics of Liberty" is an excellent book, a three or four page essay encapsulating the essence of Libertarianism - enough for people to think "I can identify with this" would be more useful to people than a three hundred page book. I see such an essay of leading these people onto such a book.
I am not sure about the Democrats in the USA but, in England, I feel that New Labour people (left) could be just as interested in this subject as our Conservatives (right) at the grass root level, although I can see their leadership hating it. We would, alas, need a new party as, by tradition, if the Conservatives lead this way forward, the left would automatically reject it in a knee jerk reaction. Therefore I see the education needs to be started before Ron Paul of the Republicans wins the Democratic Party nominations. In other words, before the right are identified in our left's mind.
Hence the rush for me publishing the seed message to this thread.
I think there are some important Libertarian or free-market think tanks in Great Britain.
Institute of Economic Affairs: http://www.iea.org.uk/
Adam Smith Institute: http://www.adamsmith.org/
And maybe more.
Neither the Tories nor Labour would have any interest in it. In fact an ideology such as libertarianism would strongly compromise their positions. The parties that might show an interest are the UKIP and perhaps the Liberal-Democrats, though I think the latter are just vote-mongering sell-outs. You might find this site to be of interest.
As for Hoppe, I find him easy to read as well, although he writes for a much more advanced audience than did Rothbard.
Thanks for those links, but although of interest to me, are not aimed at the sort of person I want to aim the proposed article at.
I agree with you about the UK main parties. Which is why I mentioned that only the grass roots could be interested. The main parties have too much vested interests in central Government. Although, having said that, Ron Paul is certainly going against the Republican vested interests.
I find Dr Gabbs site a little extreme in a lot of areas and although of use to a committed Libertarian, is not one I would push a newcomer at who wanted to find out more about Libertarianism.
And with reference to your comments on Hoppe, this just goes to prove that I have no intellectual capabilities :-)
Andrew.
I think Walter Block gives an excellent little snippet in the introduction of Defending the Undefendable that perhaps you, or someone else, could expand on:
"...Libertarianism. The basic premise of this philosophy is that it is illegitimate to engage in aggression against non-aggressors. What is meant by aggression is not assertiveness, argumentativeness, competitiveness, adventurousness, quarrelsomeness, or antagonism. What is meant by aggression is the use of violence[**], such as that which takes place in murder, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Libertarianism does not imply pacificism; it does not forbid the use of violence in defense or even in retaliation against violence. Libertarian philosophy condemns only the initiation of violence - the use of violence against a non-violent person or his property.
There is nothing untoward or controversial about such a view. Most people would give it their wholehearted support. Indeed, this sentiment is part and parcel of our Western civilization, enshrined in the law, in our Constitution[***], and in the natural law."
[All emphasis in original]
**I would add "or the palpable threat thereof" to cover extortion
***Obviously Professor Block refers to the US Constitution, but it is likely that applies to the English Constitution as well.
Good snippet. BTW, there is no English Constitution, or at least nothing analogous to the US one.
Thank you for that, That might be a good idea - to gather a few interesting snippets and weave an article around them. This one has been saved as the first. I really do appreciate that.
Andrew Taylor
Re Constitution: Correct, although I suppose you could count the Magna Carta in a very loose sense.
ampers:I looked at the publications on this site and when I came to Murray N. Rothbard's "The ethics of liberty" I went out and bought my own copy.I am new to "knowing" that I am really a libertarian and now that I know, it is a big load off my mind as I was beginning to feel I was alone in the world! If anyone here could write a 2,000 word essay on what Libertarianism is" and keep it simple, writing for the less literate person, I would be pleased to use my printing and publishing skills to make a PDF, using illustrations, "break-outs" and print it in two columns (easier to scan without moving one's eyes), so that we all have something short and simple to send out to all the people we know.The reason why I would like something like this "out there" is because, in Europe, unlike America, we don't have a libertarian party and most people wouldn't know what one is, if it came and bit them on the nose! There must be hundreds of thousands of people who, like me, did not know (a) what Libertarian means and (b) that they are, in fact, a libertarian.If there is nobody to help me, then I could do this myself. However it would have to be in 2009 as I need to know so much more about this before I could write about it thoroughly.Remember, 2,000 words - a few eeks work for someone who has no deep knowledge of the subject, but ONLY a couple of hours work for someone who has all the knowledge at their fingertips.Help me, to help others, to help you.Ampers.
Just a quick question: are you looking to write something on libertarian anarchism or an essay on libertarianism in general?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
In General. Because I never knew I was one until I spent considerable time researching the subject, I want something short to send to people I know. And others who can do the same to people they know. I intend to tie it up with the “short” quiz which seems to have been updated lately at “Advocates for self government”.
Has to be simple and clear so that children can also read it and understand it.
I have sent for the short book "Libertarianism in one easy lesson" from Amazon in the States. Got a shock as postage was over three times the book cost.
howdy, i would think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
might be a good jump off point if you were looking for somethign already written thats concise that you could further shorten.
also i dont have a link to hand but i remember reading a website that explained libertarianism through appeals to SouthPark. perhaps youd find that kind of thing amusing/helpful
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I think I could tie together parts of some of my campaign literature into what you're looking for. Drop me an email at JAlanKatz@mises.com if you're interested in seeing what I have.
Thank you for the Wiki link. Yes, there is quite a lot of useful information there. I have already decided that I will have to write this myself so that link will prove a good starting point.
I have also Googled "South Park" and "Libertarianism" and am ploughing through some of the links. I was particularly amused by the Wall-Mart episode where we finally learn who is responsible for the invasion of Wall-Mart into every area of our lives (Tesco in Britain). It is us, the consumer :-)
Thanks for that, I have emailed you.
Andrew
There are strong foundations for libertarianism in Europe. Over here we usually call it liberalism though (damn you Americans for distoring the language )
The modern liberal tradition was in a sense developed in Britain (Mill, Locke, Hume, Smith etc), and is still visible today - Margaret Thatcher, for instance, admired Freidrich Hayek. A famous incident was when she at a party convention had to listen to politicians speaking of middle-of-the-road policy, become more and more irritated, she pulled out The Constitution of Liberty from her purse and said "THIS is what we believe in!". Of course you might say that this is an exception to the rule, but so is libertarianism in the US (the LP is minimal, Ron Paul considered a joke, and so on).
The liberal tradition is strong here, of course, mainly outside the universities (where Marxism still is admired, this is also the case in the US I believe), but just look at all the liberal think-tanks, publications, books published. Just to get the picture - take a look at the London-based Stockholm Network, a listing of ovr 110 free-market think-tanks in Europe.
:-)
I think, in this case, you have been a little unkind to the Americans. I welcome the label Libertarian in the UK, mostly because there is so much confusion on what exactly a Liberal is, since the party "Social Democrats" were formed after a merging withm what was it? The "Liberal Democrats" I believe.
The Social Democrats are still confused with being Liberals although to my way of thinking they are far to the left of Nu Labour. I know there is a separate and rather small "Liberal Party" consisting of what were true Liberals at that time who refused to amalgamate. But small parties will always find it hard to expand. Mainly because of the king-sized egos many leaders of small parties have. What chance does a small party have to expand if their leader, together with their NEC want to keep their cosy niche?
I think Ron Paul was right to try for the presidentcy this time on a Republican ticket. he will get better results than going in on the Libertarian Party ticket which he did last time. Although I think his success this time can be equally contributed to the fact that it is more relevant for today that it was last time.
I have bookmarked the link, for which I thank you, and shall delve into it and read as much as I can.
I think that my task is going to be very difficult, to write exactly what Libertarianism is in just 2,000 words. However if one cannot do so in such a succinct manner, then it will be more difficult to get the "man in the street" interested. We have all read about the short attention span the average person is purported to possess nowadays.
I have only known that I am a 100% Libertarian for a month, since I took the "small quiz" test. It is no wonder I have been a member of so many parties during my life, looking for the right home. It is this precise reason why I want to try and do something to help other unknown Libertarians to know who they are. But before I can do this I am going to have to spend hundreds of hours of research.
Perhaps I can use this message to thank all those who have tried to help and to wish everyone a 2008 where Ron Paul will finally put us all on the map. He has already done this in America but he has to at least win the Republican nomination before this will filter through to the UK.
I agree with lebear that there is a great tradition of libertarian thought in Europe.
But it is arguable that the origins of this tradition are in Great Britain.Firstly, we have the Late Spanish Scholastics such as Juan de Mariana (who gives name to one of the most important libertarian think-tanks in Spain: http://www.juandemariana.org), Martín Azpilcueta or Saravia de la Calle to name a few. For example, Mariana defended tyrannicide and criticised the monetary manipulation by the King. See 'JUAN DE MARIANA AND THE SPANISH SCHOLASTICS' by Huerta de Soto:http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/fronts/frontdemariana.htm
Then we have the French Liberal School with Say, Bastiat, Condillac, Molinari... who were mainly advocates of laissez-faire: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/schools/frenchlib.htm
According to Rothbard and some other Austrians, Smith's influence on economic thought was negative, because he introduced the labor theory of value which denies that value is purely subjective, as some continental europeans thinkers had said.
So, the origins of libertarianism in Europe are not so clear as it seems, and we should pay attention to the Late Spanish Scholastics, who, according to some scholars (Gabriel Calzada, particularly) are the prehistory of the Austrian School.
Of course, there are many roots and you could trace it back even down to the Greeks etc. I just pointed out that the tradition was greatly refined by these British thinkers (and of course others too) - they bridged the gap between previous thinkers and the modern, more sophisticated, era. And I wanted to make the man, who's from the UK, aware of the fact that in Britain the liberal tradition is strong.
I have only recently equated true Liberalism with Libertarianism, although I do realise the subtle differences of course.
Thanks for that, it is all grist for the mill...
Liberalism is rationalistic. It maintains that it is possible to convince theimmense majority that peaceful cooperation within the framework of societybetter serves their rightly understood interests than mutual battling andsocial disintegration. It has full confidence in man’s reason. It may be thatthis optimism is unfounded and that the liberals have erred. But then thereis no hope left for mankind’s future.
I so agree with the last sentence...
That's a Mises quote. Can be found in the first part of Human Action ;)
Here's a short essay by David Boaz from Cato, his book is a pretty good primer for the beginner as well (see the link on the bottom)
Why You Are a Libertarian
by Harry Browne
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/WhyYoureALibertariam.htm
You’re a libertarian because you abhor violence . . .
When a neighbor isn’t willing to contribute as much to a social project as you are, you’d never think of:
Using a gun to force him to contribute; Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn’t contribute; Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn’t contribute — because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don’t comply.
Using a gun to force him to contribute;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn’t contribute;
Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn’t contribute — because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don’t comply.
If two people have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:
Using a gun to stop them; Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop; Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.
Using a gun to stop them;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap them if they didn’t stop;
Using the government in place of the armed gang to stop them.
If a company and an individual have agreed to engage in voluntary behavior between them, with no violence involved, you’d never think of:
If a foreign government is not attacking America, you’d never support the idea of initiating violence against the foreign country.
As one who abhors violence, you’re willing to tolerate anything that’s peaceful, and you practice the principle of live and let live — opposing the initiation of force (violence) against anyone for any purpose.
That’s why you’re a libertarian.
Libertarianism: Ideology for the Common Man
By Alex Peak
Who makes up the “common man”? They are men, and women. They’re workers, and entrepreneurs. They’re students, and teachers. They’re atheists, and believers in God. The common men and women vary from one another in many ways. Some prefer rock and roll, while others prefer classical music. Some are polite while others are rude. Some want long-term, committed relationships, and others are looking for one-night stands. There are some who prefer reading, and others who prefer television. In short, each individual is unique.
Despite our individual differences, there are basic ideals that virtually all of us share. This is because common men and women are largely libertarian in their personal interactions with one another.
What is a libertarian? The simplest definition of a libertarian is one who opposes the initiation of force in any relationship among humans or the organisations they form. To the libertarian, the only just use of force is defensive. If a person comes along and attempts to initiate force against you, by stealing your wallet for example, he or she is acting in a criminal manner; you have every right to repel his or her attack with equal and opposing force. However, if you initiate force against your neighbour, then you are acting criminally, and he or she may repel your attack with equal and opposing force.
Generally speaking, common men and women agree with this human ethic. The common man knows he has no right to place a gun against another person's head and demand for the other to hand over his money. The common woman knows she has no right to tell her neighbour to paint his or her house, threatening to burn his or her house down if he or she does not comply.
This ethic is an extremely common one. For example, we common people disapprove of the notion of murder. We oppose rape, theft, and battery. In short, we oppose the initiation of force. Unfortunately, not everyone in society does. Those who employ the initiation of force are typically called criminals or government employees.
Politicians, even ones with good intentions, usually have no problem taking your money to fund the special programmes they like. If you were to start a programme, you would encourage your neighbours to sponsor it with voluntary contributions, and without threatening them with jail time or, worse yet, death. Politicians, on the other hand, take money from you at the point of a gun. By this I mean to say that if you do not surrender the money you earned, politicians will send armed officials to your door and drag you off to prison; and in some countries, you'll be lucky to come away from the experience alive. Certainly, this conduct would be impermissible if you or I tried to do to our neighbours what the politicians do to us, but this just goes to show that typical politicians do not live by the same ethic as the common man.
Politicians don’t simply take our money, but also rarely have any problem forcing their personal or moral standards onto people. If you don’t like that your homosexual neighbours are planning to marry one another, then you would simply talk to them, encouraging them to alter their life-styles. You would never think to place a gun against their heads and force them to conform to your standard, just as you would not want them to force you to conform to theirs. Politicians, by and large, do not care about the Golden Rule.
Insofar as criminals aim to impose their wishes onto their fellow citizens, they are no different from your average politician. The difference between the common criminal and the average politician is simply, effectively, the difference between how many guns they use to compel innocent persons to conform.
Given the libertarian’s opposition to the initiation of force, libertarians typically have political ideals that aim at limiting the power of government. Thus, libertarians oppose laws that restrict freedom of speech or of the press, freedom to bear defensive weapons, freedom to choose one’s own religion or to choose no religion at all, freedom to a fair trial, freedom of association, freedom to form unions, freedom to fire unions, freedom to choose what kind of foods one wishes to buy, freedom to choose what causes one donates one’s own money, and freedom to choose what substances one wishes to place into one’s own body. Libertarians oppose all forms of slavery, and wish to see taxes cut as much as possible, and the repeal of all drug laws. When it comes to voluntary sexual relations, including prostitution, libertarians wish to see the abolition of all such regulations, while continuing to oppose the use of force in sexual relations, such as rape and molestation. The libertarian, believing the only just use of force to be defensive, opposes war for any purpose other than defence. All of these reforms would serve to limit the power of government and increase the liberty of all individuals in society, in the eyes of libertarians.
The libertarian is neither inherently socialist nor conservative. Indeed, one can be very conservative in one’s personal life and personal conduct, but be a libertarian because he or she would never dream of forcing his or her own conservative conduct onto his or her neighbour. Likewise, one can be very much a socialist (or liberal in the American context) in one’s personal life and personal conduct, but nevertheless be a libertarian because he or she would never dream of forcing his or her socialism onto his or her neighbour. Compare the common men and women, who wish to see their neighbours and them fully free in their own persons and property, with the typical politician, who has no “live and let live” outlook, and thinks nothing of forcing his or her conservative or socialist standards onto his or her subjects. The difference is like the difference between night and day!
It is not impossible for a politician to be a libertarian. Some particularly radical libertarians who have served as politicians include Frédéric Bastiat of France and Auberon Herbert of England. Nevertheless, politicians often fail to meet the libertarian standards of the common man, even going so far as committing disgusting crimes against humanity, such as Adolph Hitler in Germany and Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union. Wherefore libertarians, aiming to do away with the initiation of force in any relationship among humans and the organisations they form, necessarily aim to limit the size, scope, and cost of government. After all, it’s the least we can do to protect the Liberty of the common men and women.
Yes, that is very succinct. Thanks for that, I can use it as an intro.
And Thanks to Allix and others for their contributions. My apologies for not replying to all, but the threading here isn't perfect and it is difficult for me sometimes.
I think there is enough here for me to research and get my PDF written.
I'll leave a note here when its done and where it is on the web.
http://www.mises.org/story/2616
That might help too.