According to Libertarian philosophy everyone owns themselves. From this we can reason that people should not steal, enslave others, or murder. Libertarian philosophy tells us that man should not initiate force or fraud on another man, but this only has to do what we should not do. Is there anything that a person that subscribes to a Libertarian philosophy should do, morally speaking? I am very anxious to hear thoughts from anarchists and minarchists on this one.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
"whatever else"
Well, I'm being a bit facetious as I don't subscribe to those "libertarian natural rights" (though I am very much an Austrian free market anarchist), but the above is correct as far as it goes.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
Live well.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Solid_Choke:Is there anything that a person that subscribes to a Libertarian philosophy should do, morally speaking?
I think that the libertarian philosophy has exactly this idea in its center that one does not hold any moral obligations, in contrast to socialists, other than to respect everyones freedom. I've never heard libertarians promoting anything else. What someone might consider to be moral obligations - being friendly, well-wishing etc - are in my opinion just conditions required through the market in order to be better off. One doesn't have to be friendly but then could become socially isolated. Anyway, it's his own choice.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
If I were sufficiently versed in neo-Aristotelean/Objectivist philosophy, I'd give an answer as both philosophies contain a notion of the 'good life'. I doubt there are any such individuals on this board though.
As the quotes in your topic heading indicate - 'should' is a very dangerous word. Those people 'should' do X translates all to easily into: those people should be put in jail if they refuse to pay for X (the current state of affairs).
If we can constrain this to the individual level and ensure it stays there, that would probably be fine. Then I think one could say 'free people should do whatever they choose to do - respecting always others' rights.'
Now, a more interesting question might be 'what "would" libertarians do?'
Most folks opposed to the tenets of libertarianism think that such a world would be all about greed and selfishness. I think they are wrong, and the proof surrounds them. The State extorts about half of what we earn - and yet the people of this nation still give generously to charities, whether time, money or effort is the criteria. Philanthropy is alive and well. Imagine how much MORE alive and well it would be under a free system.
Another way of looking at this is: the free market is such an effective approach precisely because it relies upon individuals to act in their self-interest. So from this perspective, society benefits tremendously when this happens. Thus, perhaps you could say 'people "should" act in their self-interest' in a libertarian society. This is the surest - though by no means perfect - route to a higher level of overall societal happiness.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
As Don mentions, there really is no such thing as a positive moral obligation in libertarian philosophy, at least to my knowledge (I'm sure there are some who will disagree with this and present some exceptions to the rule, but I can't find any exception). There are lots of things I think that people should do, but I have to step outside of the realm of libertarianism and into aesthetics and the well-being of the isolated individual in order to propose them. For example, I think that people should exercise and eat their vegetables, otherwise they will not be healthy. You should probably brush your teeth and take a shower once in a while as well. I also think that people should buy Ibanez Jem guitars instead of BC Rich. And I think everyone should try playing Dungeons and Dragons once in a while. It's fun!
But this does not mean that I'm going to make this a moral obligation for you. This has nothing to do with libertarian ethics; you are free to make all of the dumb personal choices you please that only effect yourself. In a libertarian paradime, indeed, people are free to engage in activities that are against their own well-being (such as cut yourself, never shower and eat like a pig) so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process. So there are also no purely personal positive obligations. And you are free to have whatever aesthetic preferences you please so long as you do not initiate force against anyone else in the attempt to achieve those ends. Isn't that the whole point of a free market? Consumer sovereignty. Free reign of aesthetics. Free exchange of gismos and gadgets and whatever non-invasive services tickle your fancy.
In either case, I don't think that anyone has an ethical obligation to do anything for anyone else against their consent (of course, if they voluntarily agreed to a contract, such requirements do have their prior consent). I do not think that people have a "right" to be served by others in any way, so all positive "rights" go out the window in my book. I think of liberty as being free from certain actions of others; there is no freedom to certain actions of others against their consent (understandably, many find this controversial since it implies the liberty to exclude; discrimination). "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" gets it wrong in that it can easily imply positive moral obligations (universal altruism even). A negativistic approach of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" would make more sense (universal non-initiation of force).
If your question is more of a matter of libertarian strategy, then I think there are plenty of things you should do. But to be clear, once again, none of it is a positive moral obligation. My own personal view is that you should not vote, but I don't make an ethical arguement against voting (only an empirical and practical one). I think that libertarians should form and patronize private institutions as an alternative to the state's services, even illegally if necessary. They also should read and write and speak out to others as much as possible, as well as do their best at disengaging from the state (within the confines of staying alive) and engage in mass civil disobedience. Another more extreme option is going expatrate. And if you want to think really long-term, invest in private space exploration and terraforming technology (maybe I've been reading too much Robert Heinline)!
ozzy43:If we can constrain this to the individual level and ensure it stays there, that would probably be fine. Then I think one could say 'free people should do whatever they choose to do - respecting always others' rights.'
How should a free person choose what to do? More precisely, how do YOU choose what to do? Can the Libertarian philosophy give us any insight into that or is it outside the scope of Libertarianism?
Solid_Choke: Is there anything that a person that subscribes to a Libertarian philosophy should do, morally speaking?
Is there anything that a person that subscribes to a Libertarian philosophy should do, morally speaking?
Of course there is: pursue his own happiness.
In Gold We Trust
Rhotair:Of course there is: pursue his own happiness.
Well, this actually isn't any obligation. It is simply something that man has compelled to, it's his 'natural drive'. No one can refrain from pursueing his own happiness, even an so called altruist still has his motives for being one and he certainly gains something from it, whether it's just a peace of mind or perhaps social capital he can later get help or support from.
Brainpolice:maybe I've been reading too much Robert Heinlein
Is there such a thing as reading *too* much Heinlein??? ;-)
Brainpolice:Another more extreme option is going expatrate.
In fact, this is my intent in the longer term. The way I see it, even just *living* supports the State. Even if you take steps to reduce your income to eliminate an income tax liability, there are sales taxes, govt fees on utility bills, even benefits to the State from doing your Christmas shopping, especially via credit card. The trap is comprehensive - the system WILL benefit from your very existence within it. So either you devote your life to undermining the system, or you escape it.
Of course, then you will be supporting an arguably similar system elsewhere, but I think it's a matter of degree. Supporting a State that does not include a standing army, for example, seems preferrable to supporting one that does.
Solid_Choke:How should a free person choose what to do? More precisely, how do YOU choose what to do? Can the Libertarian philosophy give us any insight into that or is it outside the scope of Libertarianism?
I think that lies outside the scope of any political philosophy, and that it is when this is brought inside that scope that problems begin. Think: socialists and their class warfare; or evangelicals wanting to monitor your bedroom activities.
I think that in a libertarian society, instead of behaving in ways determined by the constraints set about us by the State (i.e. driven by FEAR), people would tend to behave in ways determined by the constraints set up by our recognition of other folks' rights (i.e. driven by RESPECT).
So I for one would choose what to do based on my aesthetic and practical and personal needs and desires, guided by my personal ethics, in the context of a firm respect for my own and others's rights and liberties.
So in that light, consider this: do you think that a society based on respect or one based on fear, will have better luck in resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise between humans?
I don't think there is, or that there should be. Libertarianism is a political philosophy: it deals with how society should run. Ethics are a separate branch of philosophy, and the point of a free society is to allow individuals to decide for themselves how they will live as long as they do not interfere with the lives, liberty, or property of other individuals.
A libertarian, secular or religious, should first recognize the only means of gaining knowledge: reason, the ability to make logical conclusions based upon sensory perception of objective reality. Thats the faculty thats has enabled libertarians to ultimately determine that lassiez-faire market capitalism is the optimal social system, the one most conducive to mankind's existence. Obviously, libertarians thus should defend the free-market and its underlining principles: natural rights, non-aggression, liberty, and rule of objective, rights-protecting law.
Ultimately, the consistent libertarian should recognize that anarchism and capitalism are mutually inclusive, anarchism being the doctrine of statelessness and voluntary cooperation and association among individuals and capitalism being the system where property is appropriated through homesteading and where all allocations and prices are determined by the market. Note that under anarcho-capitalism, common property can certainly exist.
With this in mind, the libertarian should tenaciously and zealously advocate these principles as much as humanly possible, online and on print and seek to discredit any and all philosophical and political ideologies that contradict reason and liberty.
But in order to do this, the intelligent libertarian would familiarize him or herself with the multitude of libertarian texts that have been written by such erudite and wise minds before him: Rothbard, Mises, Menger, Rand, Hayek, de Soto, and the rest of the Austrian School as well as non-Austrian libertarians. The libertarian though must recognize the validity of the Austrian School because, unlike all of the other schools of economics, the Austrian School rests upon a solid, undeniable praxeological fact of existence: that humans make conscious actions toward chosen goals.
I can certainly think of some things I think libertarians should be, but only because libertarians are people, and I can think of things I think people should do, such as help the poor and needy, pursue meaningful relationships, and so on. I don't think libertarianism implies these things, though, because libertarianism is only about politics, not morality. The libertarian is not amoral, and certainly doesn't think that people should do something like "be selfish" - that's Objectivism, not libertarianism. You'll have to study other areas to learn what you should do.
There is a group advocating thick libertarianism - the view that libertarianism does, in fact, extend beyond politics. I'd actually agree, in a certain respect - I think libertarianism applies to all areas of coercion, not just government. So I'd include some points from feminism, gay rights, and so on within what it means to be a libertarian - this is why I'm a left libertarian.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:In my opinion there is no room for "should" in libertarian thought.
Oh? How about "people should refrain from murder and rape"?
Solid_Choke:According to Libertarian philosophy everyone owns themselves. From this we can reason that people should not steal, enslave others, or murder. Libertarian philosophy tells us that man should not initiate force or fraud on another man, but this only has to do what we should not do. Is there anything that a person that subscribes to a Libertarian philosophy should do, morally speaking? I am very anxious to hear thoughts from anarchists and minarchists on this one.
This is exactly the reason why I think Jesus was a libertarian: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", nuff said.
Libertarianism, as part of the liberal tradition, has an advantage since all humans seek the desire to make choices to live in the world. Self-ownership is important then since with control over ourselves, and thus control over our minds, we have the means to choose unimpeded. Few other political ideologies in the world, in my opinion at least, can trace their principles to such root aspects of human nature.
So helping others is merely an extension of our ability to choose. Besides, if altruism or compassion for those who are suffering is inherent to human nature, then why do people need to be forced to be compassionate? Such a thing should surely arise voluntarily and without any senior or external coercion.
And in our current orthodoxy of liberal democracy, is there any intrinsic compulsion to help others within that system? I see little evidence that there is.