Two forms of libertarianism. What's Right v. What Works.
Some here try to monopolize the term "libertarian" to mean only the doctrine that hinges on absolute adherence to the non-aggression doctrine. And they attack those that do not subscribe to that form of libertarianism as not being authentic libertarians. For their information, that's not the only kind of libertarianism. Libertarian is a pretty broad tent that allows other viewpoints as long as they believe in abundant liberty. The form I subscribe to simply believes that allowing a large amount of liberty leads to be the best consequences for a society, whether or not an action is aggression or "initiation of force." This form of libertarianism will accept some initiation of force if the benefits of that initiation of force outweigh the costs.
For instance I'm against open borders. To prohibit free free unrestricted entry of people through U.S. borders is against non-aggression libertarianism, but it is supported by the form of libertarianism to which I subscribe IF the costs outweigh the benefits. We don't say a person should be allowed to do X because he has a natural right to do X. We say he should be allowed to do X because allowing X leads to the most happy, peaceful, and properous society. If X works against that goal, it should not be allowed, regardless of whether initiation of force is used to prevent it. For example, I dont think every individual should be allowed to own a weapon of mass destruction. The cost of allowing that liberty outweighs the benefits. Force should be initiated to prevent it. To not initiate force in that case would result in society's destruction.
Dr. Paul has admired libertarians of both kinds. For instance, Ayn Rand and Lysander Spooner are a "deontological libertarians" (subscribers to the non-aggression doctrine as natural law), while von Mises and Hayek were "consequentialist libertarians" like myself. Some people's libertarianism is a hybrid of both.
Read this for more a little more information behind the two forms of libertarianism: What's Right v. What Works: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/editors-right....
Sorry, but ...
either you promote individual liberty without exception, or you grant arbitrary exceptions for practical purposes, which in principle means that any other arbitrary exceptions can also be made.
The Libertarian Party has been taken over by people who have decided not to defend individual liberty, but instead call for smaller government, period. They want to attract the old conservative base of the GOP, which even in the Reagan years was looking to limit individual rights in the areas of individual behavior and voluntary social interactions.
They have lost sight of the fact that you can't consistently argue for liberty if you grant exceptions here and there for political expediency.
Let's use your example of "illegal" immigration. If someone enters the country without government permission, but always has the permission of individual property owners to visit their holdings, there simply is no trespass -- hence no crime in moral terms. It's only by taking a collectivist view of property ("America owns all the land, so illegal immigrants are trespassing on the nation's property rights.") that restricting the free movement of foreigners who respect individual property rights can be rationalized.
Ron Paul recognizes that we have a problem with a welfare state magnet attracting foreigners to grab what they can from the golden goose. It's not a problem with immigration, but a problem with how our government rewards immigrants who want to exploit the welfare state.
So there are two approaches: restrict the liberty of immigrants who might take advantage of our horribly misbegotten welfare state, or eliminate the welfare state itself. As a doctor, Ron should immediately recognize what's the disease and what's the symptom.
So should we all.
I think a good alternative
I think a good alternative to "arbitrary exceptions" is to adhere to a constitution.
Then under your concept
we should allow every individual to own WMD.
That would be insane.
Some liberty has to be restricted, because the costs of allowing it outweight the benefits.
--------
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2370864598223573012&...
good post.
good post.
Two forms of libertarianism
1) the real, pro-liberty, natural rights kind
2) the phoney, seductively pro-statist, morally bankrupt pragmatism that this hateful and malicious troll keeps trying to shove down our throats.
Call this bastard out as the liar and disinformation agent that he is!
Test
test
--------
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2370864598223573012&...
Here's a better
Here's a better link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism