| The Libertarian Principle, Morality, and Law |
| Today we talked about libertarianism in Political Ideologies. Good discussion, but it made me want to update (yay!). Therefore, I will now try to expound what I call “the libertarian principle”, and how it relates to morality and law.
The libertarian principle can be stated in a single word: nonaggression. By this we mean: physical force or threat of physical force is only just as a response to physical force or the immanent threat of physical force. So, what then is physical force? Physical force is the causing of uninvited physical change by one person to another person or item owned by another person. For example, a person slaps me across the face when I don’t want it. This leads to certain physical changes in my face (a part of my “person”), and therefore it is physical force. Observe: by this definition, if I ask someone to slap me across the face, their doing so isn’t physical force. Some would differ with this definition, but that is a semantic argument that I will ignore for the time being. If you prefer, we can talk about coming up with some new word instead of the word force. As for now, I’m using it that way, so get used to it. Also, for simplicity, I will drop the modifier “physical”, but it is to be understood in the following discussion. The libertarian principle, as described above, argues for two things immediately. First, that each person should, by principles of justice, own his or her body. Second, that private property should, by principles of justice, exist. The first principle seems obvious enough, if ownership is understood as determination of use. It seems immediately obvious to most people nowadays that another person determining how I use my body IS slavery and unjust. I will not provide a viable philosophical argument for this stance as of now, as I don’t feel it necessary for my current purpose. There are also a number of good reasons to support private property, from natural rights (for example, Locke and Rothbard) to efficiency (Friedman and Mises). To cut that discussion short for the time being, I’ll come back to my main subject: the relationship of the libertarian principle of nonaggression to morality and law. In short, the libertarian principle is not a moral maxim in that it does not argue for a sense of “good” or “virtue”. Thus, there is no contradiction between the Christian idea that “God owns all” and the libertarian idea that “All is owned by individuals.” They are two different realms of statement. “God owns all” is best seen as a statement of moral “ought”. To restate it that way, we should say “We ought to use those possessions we have in the way God would have us use them.” Perhaps though, we do mean “God determines the use of everything.” If that is the case, though, then it is not a moral maxim, but rather a simple statement about reality, and one that does not contradict the libertarian idea, as they mean to different things. The Christian idea means “God ultimately determines the use of everything.” The libertarian idea means that “Individuals directly determine the use of everything.” Clearly, these are noncontradictory statements. Also, the libertarian principle does not contradict the pacifistic Christian principle of nonviolence. (Though there is much debate in Christian circles how valid this principle is.) In short, the libertarian principle does not state that force MUST be used as a response to force. Rather, it may ONLY be used in that fashion. If one chooses to suffer under aggression (as Christ did), that does not violate the libertarian principle. Or, to explain another way, the libertarian principle is a restraint on action, NOT a commandment to action. Morality and virtue, however, seeks to provide both negative and positive commands for action. Morals tell us not only prohibitions of murder, theft, idolatry, and so on. They also tell us of our duties to charity, worship, and fellowship (among others). (The Golden Rule, for example, is another positive moral guideline.) So, what is the relationship between morals and the libertarian principle? For the most part, they are independent and philosophically consistent. However, this is making an assumption: The moral system is not an aggressive one. As radical Islam shows, this is not necessarily true. However, it IS true for Biblical Christianity. Ultimately, the libertarian principle is meant to be applied to law. Any law that uses physical force for any reason except to respond to physical force or the threat thereof is unjust by this principle. Practically, what does this mean? (Note: this is my interpretation, not necessarily that of all libertarians.) 1) Tax-supported defensive armies and police forces are okay. Taxes are, by nature, a threat of physical force (give me your money, or I’ll grab you and throw you in jail). However, if they are used specifically to fund defensive armies and police, then it qualifies as a threat of physical force to respond to a threat or use of physical force. 2) Tax-supported offensive armies are NOT okay. This is aggression to support aggression. A “double-whammy” against the libertarian principle. 3) Tax-supported enterprises (the USPS, TVA, etc.) are NOT okay. Because they are tax funded, there is a threat of physical force here. However, the USPS and TVA do not respond to a threat or use of physical force. Therefore, they cannot be tax funded. 4) Safety regulations are not okay. By nature, these regulations are enforced by taxes. However, they do not respond to a threat or use of physical force. Accidents are NOT a form of physical force, and therefore preventing them, though prudent, is NOT a response to physical force. 5) Drug laws are not okay. By nature, ALL laws threaten physical force (if you refuse to comply, eventually you WILL be shot). Therefore, ALL laws must respond to a threat or use of physical force. Simply injecting heroin into your own arm (though certainly stupid), is NOT a use of physical force against another. 6) Laws forbidding theft are okay. Theft, by nature, requires an uninvited physical change to items owned by another. Specifically, their location. Therefore, laws forbidding theft are just. 7) Laws forbidding fraud are okay. This one gets more complicated. The nature of fraud is that one offers a false good for another good. (This applies to services as well.) Thus, if there is agreement, there is an invited change. However, the change that actually occurs is NOT the same as the invited change. For example, you say “Hey, I’ll give you my magical wizard’s staff for your magic ring.” I say “Yes, I’d love to give you my magic ring for your magical wizard’s staff.” You then hand me a very unenchanted walking stick and take the magic ring. The exchange that took place was NOT the exchange I invited. Thus, it qualifies as force. There are others, but they all (to my knowledge) fit under the categories of force against person (assault, battery, rape, murder), force against property (vandalism, arson, theft, trespassing), and fraud. Well, that’s it. I hope this clears some things up for those of you who’ve been wondering about libertarianism, or who have misconceptions about it. Happy thinking! |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |