I like this video it does illustrate some of the principles of libertarianism as well as some of the issues surrounding the non-aggression principle. The basic thing that gets sometimes leveled is that if you don’t like it here you can always leave. Well, aside from the fact that it is not always possible to leave, after all we are a world that is shrinking and more wilderness land is getting harder and harder to find and use, it may simply be a matter of economics whether a person has the right to leave their state or not. The real question that should be asked — Why should I leave?
Getting back to the video that do a pretty good job at pointing out that the power of the state is always force. No matter how it seems on the surface the government ultimate power derives from the threat of force. It is either force, the threat of force or lies that keep a state in power and this should not be forgotten. No matter how you try to escape this it is simply true.
What I particularly appreciate is the discussion on how something becomes owned by someone. It really puts the twists on a the social contract theory people want to hold up to justify laws and taxation. I have long held that Thomas Jefferson’s notion about the right to property ownership without interference from the state in any way was the way to go. I am only using this video to get the ball rolling on some of the issues rolling around in my head because I realize as well done as it is it is incomplete but it does aly out the foundation of why the non-aggression principle is important for a civil society. The is issue is having a government that does not coerce cooperation through the threat of force. Having a government that is more concerned with defending an upholding the right of individuals and minimizing the rights of the state.
For me the question has always revolved around the issue of what would I do? I mean where would I draw the line to use force. Stopping murder, rape and theft? Absolutely, but what about beyond that. Stopping a woman from having sex for money? Sorry I wouldn’t pull my gun and do violence or threaten violence to stop her so why then would I give the state power to do so in place? This is the issue when we look at the role of the state. We should only given the state power that we would use ourselves and if we would not use violence or threat to do something ourselves then we shouldn’t give it to the state either. Being a bully by proxy is still being a bully.
When the state comes along and thus tells me to do x and y and then adds – ‘If you don’t like it then you can leave”, my response is now “Why Should I Leave? Why don’t you stop being a bully about x and y?” This potential for the state to be a bully is why we have the Bill of Rights. It is deliberately aimed to curb the state’s power. It seems we have forgotten this at times but it remains no less true.
I have a lot of issues still spinning in my brain about this and particular application to things but the basics are still good to review. I have no other motivation than to see whether or not libertarianism can have a central core that most Americans can agree with and thus also begin to make headway on a third-party that not only gets some votes but begin to challenge the red and blue monsters that only promise voters different targets for the government’s use of power.
IMHO and still searching.
