What is Libertarianism?

I run into the same questions and discussions often. I feel that even though I have written a great deal on this site about these issues, some basics must be addressed from time to time. Many misunderstand the word ‘libertarian’. It has taken a context in the current political climate in the United States that alludes to people like Glenn Beck or to Tea Parties. Many think that a ‘libertarian’ is somehow a political stance for constitutionalism. This is all inaccurate.

Who do we look to for a definition of Libertarianism? I will point to two specific libertarians for a foundation of what libertarianism is, those will be Samuel E. Konkin III and Murray Rothbard. I may not agree completely with every stance they took, but they both lay out the foundation of libertarianism well. The foundation of libertarianism is really what makes one a libertarian and this would the the non-aggression axiom.

No person may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical force.

It is that simple. That is the definition of libertarianism.

There are variations of the non-aggression axiom, but the one I most commonly see is Rothbards.

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonagression axiom/” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

– Murray Rothbard

The issue that seems to divide in this definition is property which we will look at later.

Minarchism vs. Anarchism
Under this we see the divisions of libertarianism begin. One of the most prominent arguments in libertarianism is the Minarchism vs. Anarchism debate. A minarchist is one who believes in a minimal state where as an anarchist believes in the elimination of the state. I am an anarchist. I go further than the elimination of a state but to the point of the elimination of all rulers and hierarchy that occur within race, class, gender and more.  I base my anarchist philosophy in the non-aggression axiom. In a sense I have evolved my foundation closer to a form of anarcho-pacifism. There are many other stances on this within libertarians. Some feel that there is an element of state needed and others feel that there is no state that can be justified under the non-aggression axiom.

Many of the modern libertarians in the United States apply this to the context of the state and see the constitution as a means that will somehow bring it about. Many libertarians also reject the constitution as any other form of government or rule.

Capitalism, Anti-Captialism, Mutualism and Socialism
Not all who claim a libertarian philosophy are staunch capitalists. There are some who would embrace concepts across the board, some leaning to socialist ideas and some to far anarcho-capitalist ideas. Myself, I find that both have some valid points, writings and arguments, but at the end of the day I fall in the mutualist camp. Many feel that they support a freed market but do not support a system of capitalism.

This argument is often one that is based on the concept of property rights and coercion:

amongst those who call themselves libertarians, there is disagreement about what constitutes coercion and what constitutes mere persuasion. Largely, the disagreement is based upon beliefs about property rights:

* To the libertarian who believes that every individual has a right to his or her own property (sometimes called “right libertarians”), inaction is never coercion, such that one cannot violate the Non-Aggression Axiom even by refusing to help someone stay alive. Under this understanding of coercion, if Frank said to a starving man “I will not give you any of my food or water unless you mow my lawn”, that would be persuasion, not coercion, because Frank would not use coercive physical force against the starving, thirsty man if the starving, thirsty man chose not to mow Frank’s lawn. Consider that anarcho-capitalist economist Murray Rothbard described the Non-Aggression Axiom this way:

“The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.” – For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard

It will be noticed that Rothbard’s description of the Non-Aggression Axiom uses the phrase “property of anyone else”, which implies that one person can hold property to the exclusion of others (a belief shared by only some who call themselves “libertarian”). Rothbard fully intended that the title “libertarian” should apply only those who agree that every individual has a right to his or her own property.

* To the libertarian who believes that no person should have a right to exclude others from the use of property (sometimes called “left libertarians” or “socialist libertarians”), inaction is sometimes coercion, and inaction can sometimes constitute a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Under this understanding of coercion, if Frank said to the starving man “I will not give you any of my food or water unless you mow my lawn”, that would be coercion, not persuasion, because – according to this view of property – the food belongs to all persons in need of it, and Frank is effectively stealing food from the starving man by not allowing him to eat it without mowing Frank’s lawn. For these libertarians, Frank’s actions are equivalent to taking food from the hands of the starving man by the initiation of coercive physical force.

-via: Mondopolitico: What is libertarianism
I strongly suggest a look at the Mondopolitico page on this subject.

The main stream has taken the term to apply mostly to a conservative movement in the United States. This movement is one that often extols the state and a form of state capitalism. Often we find that many of these people are simply paleo-cons, constitutionalists or objectivists. There is a pure raw liberalism in libertarian thought that many of these groups to not cling to. In the literal sense not in the contemporary sense. I will not discredit them as libertarian, but I will urge one to be wary and to view any of this through the lens of the non-aggression axiom.

To sum up I will state that not all who hold similar conclusions or beliefs as a libertarian are actually libertarian. Libertarianism is not defined by the final conclusion of the philosophy but rather the means to the end. To define libertarianism in one sentence is simple. Libertarianism is a belief in the non-aggression axiom.

Many libertarians fear the more radical libertarianism because they use libertarianism in a conservative minarchist political sphere. They do often discredit other libertarians in doing so. This does not discredit them as libertarians, but it is one source of much of the in-fighting between libertarians.

In the early 70′s David Nolan helped to create the Libertarian Party. A political party that attempts to bring libertarianism through the state. He also contributed the Nolan Chart which was a more accurate view of the reality of political paradigms. This has been another source of divide between libertarians.

All anarchists, anarcho-capitalists and minarchists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarchists, not all are anarcho-capitalists, and not all are pro-capitalist minarchists.

-mondopolitico

If you wish to learn more I suggest the following as a start:

• Murray Rothbard – For a new liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (Google Books)
• Samuel E. Konkin III – An Agorist Primer (PDF)
• Mises
• Mutualist.org
• Center For A Stateless Society