Libertarian Party formed in New Brunswick

 A Libertarian Party has been formed in New Brunswick, and has a website up. 

Libertarian Party of Canada leader Jacques Boudreau announces new party. Courtesy X.

About Us | Libertarian Party Of New Brunswick:

"Welcome to the Libertarian Party of New Brunswick, where we stand firmly on our principles to ensure all individuals have the freedom to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit, as long as they do no harm to another. Our core beliefs revolve around significantly reducing the size and intrusiveness of government, cutting and eliminating taxes at every opportunity, and allowing peaceful, honest people to offer their goods and services without inappropriate interference from the government.

"We believe in a society where peaceful, honest individuals can make their own decisions about how to live their lives, free from the fear of criminal or civil penalties. Founded in 2024, our party has been a consistent advocate for these principles, running many hundreds of candidates every election cycle to promote our vision of a freer, more prosperous New Brunswick.

"As part of the broader Libertarian movement, we are dedicated to expanding individual freedom to its furthest limits. We affirm the principles of no person or institution having the right to initiate the use of force or fraud against another, and that the only moral purpose of government is the preservation of individual rights. We also recognize the voluntary exchange of goods and services as essential for a free and prosperous society.

"By joining the Libertarian Party of New Brunswick, you’re not just becoming a member of a political party; you’re joining a community of like-minded individuals committed to making New Brunswick a better place for all. Together, we can work towards a future where individuals are empowered to make their own choices and live their lives to the fullest, without undue interference from government or other institutions."

Libertarian Party of 

New Brunswick

https://lpnb.ca/

Jorgensen campaign responds to "boogaloo" story

Response to the Guardian from Dr. Jo Jorgensen | Jorgensen/Cohen 2020:

"An article in the Guardian, a British newspaper, featuring a picture of Dr. Jo Jorgensen, attempts to smear the Libertarian Party presidential candidate by associating her with a movement known as boogaloo, because of her appearance on a podcast hosted by some members of the movement. The Guardian describes boogaloo by detailing its most radical elements.

"The boogaloo movement has no organization and no leadership. Participants within vary widely, from white supremacists, at one extreme, to those who vehemently condemn both racism and white supremacy. Their unifying characteristic is the belief that citizens have the right to rise up against an oppressive government, and in particular, [against] one that denies their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, or their right to self-defense.

"This view is enshrined in America’s Declaration of Independence from, coincidentally, Great Britain. It states that whenever a government becomes destructive of human rights, 'it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.'

"The Guardian article fails to distinguish between anti-government and anti-authoritarian government sentiment, the latter of which better describes the views of boogaloo members.

"As both the Libertarian Party and the Jorgensen campaign have made consistently and abundantly clear, and as the Guardian‘s journalist surely knows, libertarians vehemently oppose the initiation of force, whether by government or civilian forces.

"As Dr. Jorgensen explained to the reporter, the Libertarian Party has a membership requirement unlike that of any other U.S. political party. To be eligible to join, each individual must sign a pledge attesting that they oppose the initiation of force for the purpose of achieving social or political goals.

"'I reject violence and bigotry, and I advocate non-aggression, peaceful persuasion, and voluntary cooperation,' Jorgensen said. 'At the same time, I and my fellow libertarians reject so-called cancel culture, which denies people their right to free speech.'"

https://joj2020.com/response-to-the-guardian-from-dr-jo-jorgensen/

What do libertarians see in Tulsi Gabbard?

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not a Libertarian · 71 Republic - Peyton Gouzien:

September 4, 2019 - "For some reason, libertarians love Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has been praised for her anti-war message and honesty on a range of topics including the industrial military complex, the federal reserve, and overarching tech privacy....

"Gabbard’s list of fans includes former Texas Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul who has called her his favorite of the Democrats. This type of support has amplified ... the buzz about her campaign in libertarian and conservative circles, with many right-of-center outlets publishing glowing pieces in support of her. Libertarians willing to compromise have found a natural ally in Gabbard....

"While Gabbard has an admirable anti-war message, her foreign ... policy is far from libertarian. On the issue of foreign intervention, Gabbard still supports the War on Terror. She also endorsed the continued use of drone strikes on terrorist organizations in Syria. Though her policy positions are far less hawkish than the majority of candidates in the presidential field, supporting drone strikes on foreign nations is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle....

"On many issues, Gabbard says enough of the right thing but her actions don’t always back [her words] up. Domestically, Gabbard’s record is undesirable and big parts of her voting records are a giant red flag for most any libertarian. Gabbard supports Medicare for all, banning offshore drilling, and free college tuition. How these plans would be paid for and the cost to the American worker remains to be seen.

"In their attempts to show at the ballot, libertarians have often compromised on candidates who promote libertarian policy upfront, only to adopt big government positions when elected. President Trump is a great example of this. He has presided over a government whose deficit and debt have grown considerably in the span of four years. Trump has imposed reckless tariffs on China and dropped the MOAB and increased our involvement in Afghanistan

"Supporting Gabbard is no different. Though she is a strong libertarian advocate on several issues, the places where we disagree are numerous and important. Libertarianism is a message of limited government, both physically and financially. Gabbard has shown time and time again that she has no such interest."

Read more: https://71republic.com/2019/09/04/tulsi-gabbard-not-libertarian/
'via Blog this'

McFadzean runs for LP of Canada in Lakeland

McFadzean joins the race for Lakeland MP - Bonnyville Nouvelle - Robynne Henry:

July 23, 2019 - "Robert McFadzean is once again in the running for Lakeland [Alberta] MP as the candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada. While he doesn’t consider himself a politician, McFadzean’s main priorities are to decrease taxes and government regulations. 'Our contention is if you do that, we find that people will prosper,' he said, adding he would be opposed to any legislation put forward that would increase either.

"According to McFadzean, the basic philosophy of libertarianism is the government having minimal impacts on people’s lives. 'That’s the right that everybody has to choose for themselves, and where that leads to is that any income that a person earns, for example, is their property. They decide what to do with it,' he explained. 'When a government comes along and taxes away a part of that income, then they’re violating the liberty of that person. They’re taking away their property, which is a violation of that person’s rights.'

"McFadzean noted the main libertarian belief is people are free to decide how to interact with each other as long as no one’s rights are breached.... McFadzean believes people should be allowed to live how they choose, and the government shouldn’t interfere in that respect.

"According to McFadzean, the basis of libertarianism started back in the 1700s after the American war of independence when ... a relatively free society was established. 'It spread into the western countries, and led to a tremendous progress of wellbeing of people. We would argue that was because of liberty, that was because of the freedom people had, and since then, it seems like the governments in this country have gradually backtracked on that… We’re still free enough that our economy and lives are tremendously better than 200 years ago, but we would suggest it could be even better if we were more free than we are now'....

"McFadzean ... first ran for the position in the 2015 federal election. 'Libertarians typically get approximately one per cent of the vote, so when you run as a Libertarian you’re not exactly expecting to get elected. But, as a Libertarian, I wanted to vote for liberty. I want to vote for a Libertarian, so I run as a Libertarian so I and other like minded people have a Libertarian to vote for.'”

"The Vermilion native spent 23 years teaching at Lakeland College in economics and financial management in the agriculture department. He’s married with seven children and has been involved in the community through his church and the local music festival.

"When he ran during the 2018 provincial election for the Vermilion-Lloydminster-Wainwright riding, McFadzean pledged to cover his own expenses and to put any salary he earns, if elected, into a fund toward promoting liberty. He also promised to do the same if he’s chosen as MP for the Lakeland."

Read more: https://www.bonnyvillenouvelle.ca/article/mcfadzean-joins-the-race-for-lakeland-mp-20190723
'via Blog this'

Attacks on libertarians misguided, says Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Conservatives Against Liberty – FITSNews:

July 15, 2019 - "Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

"Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment [yet] the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

"Anti-libertarian conservatives ... blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market. The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.....

"[M]any populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism. Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

"Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

"The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use..... [L]ibertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors. Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable.

"Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

"Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral."

Read more: https://www.fitsnews.com/2019/07/15/ron-paul-conservatives-against-liberty/

'via Blog this'

FL couple wins fight to paint house like Van Gogh

Couple Wins Fight to Keep Their House Painted Like Van Gogh's Starry Night to Soothe Autistic Son - Foundation for Economic Education - David Gornoski:

August 27, 2018 - "Mt. Dora, Florida, ... is an artsy little hamlet known for its murals and art festivals. A year ago, Nancy [Nemhauser] and her husband Lubomir decided to paint their house wall in an interpretation of Vincent van Gogh's famous Starry Night painting. They had no homeowners association, they checked with city code and no issue was raised. Yet after they painted it, they received a city citation claiming the wall art was graffiti — that the wall had to match the color of the house. So the couple decided to paint the whole house to match to avoid any issue.

"This gesture ... was not received well by the city magistrates. They began to issue rolling hundred dollar fines for every day the Nemhausers failed to comply with their demands.

"Nancy and Lubomir commissioned the mural as a gift to their son, who has autism. They found that the Starry Night painting was a particular source of comfort and fascination for the young man. Also, in instances in which he might get lost from home, his difficulty in communication could be overcome by saying 'the Van Gogh house' to a person looking to help.

"If I do not like the color scheme of my neighbor's house, do I have a right to come to their door and demand that they pay me a hundred dollars a day until they fix it? If they resist long enough, can I bring men with guns to force them out of their home? Such behavior sounds insane. Because it is.

"However, when we form groups, we start to think we can get away with doing really insane or cruel things. Toxic groupthink can be playground bullies mimicking a child's unique speech pattern. It can also produce groupthink in governments that maintain the right to do things they would find abhorrent to do individually — just because a majority of voters in a space hired them.

"Nancy and Lubomir ... violated no law. They were merely victims of an arbitrarily banal exertion of power by busybodies who presume control. However, whether such a code existed or not on paper, the principle at stake here is one that arrests the very nature of what our culture should be.

"Should we ever use the threat of theft — an act of violence — to change a person's nonviolent behavior or choices? Should we have a culture that produces laws to coerce people's expression, personal choices, property use, or means of caring for their children? If there is no flesh and blood victim that can be named in a citation or police report about an event, how could we ever accuse a person of a crime or violation?

"As long as human beings are not stealing, defrauding, or initiating violence, they should enjoy their lives free from meddling.... Private contracts are mutually agreed upon covenants that can be enforced if people violate the terms. However, public contracts — the domain of states — are often arbitrarily decided piecemeal based on the ever-changing whims of the people close to power.... It is our job as role models for future generations to never let the law be used in such a farcical way.

"Thanks to their courage and the Pacific Legal Foundation, Nancy and Lubomir were victorious. Facing a federal battle over constitutional rights and an onslaught of media attention, Mt. Dora reached a settlement. As part of the agreement, the mayor publicly apologized in a press conference.

"Nancy told me the ordeal cost them greatly in health, stress, and many sleepless nights. For painting their house to help their son."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/couple-wins-fight-to-keep-their-house-painted-like-van-goghs-starry-night-to-soothe-autistic-son/
'via Blog this'

Vohra bashed for 'School Board shootings' line

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Jokes About Shooting Up a School Board; Party's National Committee Declines to Suspend Him - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Brian Doherty:

April 13, 2018 - "Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the Libertarian Party's National Committee (LNC), prides himself on being rhetorically uncompromising in staking out the most radical and potentially outrageous outer frontiers of libertarian thought. His past comments on the age of consent (he says it isn't the government's business) and the proper moral attitude toward members of the U.S. military (he says they're hired killers) caused the party's New York gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe (singled out by Politico as a 'rarity...a serious Libertarian candidate') to quit his position on the National Committee after it failed to suspend Vohra back in February.

"Since then, the rhetorical outrages have continued. In a post last month on the social network site MeWe, Vohra wrote: 'Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings.'

"Vohra insists that was not a serious threat but a joke in 'poor taste.' But he also has tried to use it as a teaching moment over the question of when violent resistance might be justified.... [A]s he wrote on Facebook, 'I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self defense?'

"He has 'no plans to ever advocate violence against the state,' but only for pragmatic reasons. 'I consider it unnecessary,' not wrong. 'I believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work.' He absolutely believes in the right to use violence to defend yourself against state actions.

"Many LNC members found the seeming threat of school board shootings to violate a pledge [the non-aggression pledge - gd] party members take to 'certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.' Vohra seems to doubt that striking at agents of the state with violence is initiating such violence, but even he wrote off the school board shooting line as a joke.

"At the end of March, some LNC members publicly asked Vohra to resign, which he opted not to do. Another motion to suspend Vohra was introduced on April 3, and last night it failed. The vote was 11–6 in favor of suspending him, but the party's rules require a two-thirds vote of the total body for suspension, so it fell a vote short....

 "LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark voted against booting Vohra.... Sarwark stood on the principle that, since Vohra was elected by the body of the members, the decision to get him out of his job should be left up to that body when it votes for the next vice chair at the party's convention in New Orleans this summer."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/13/libertarian-partys-vice-chair-jokes-abou
'via Blog this'

You're "leaving liberty"? Were you ever there?

Leaving Liberty? You Were Never Really There in the First Place - Being Libertarian - JSB Morse:

November 24, 2017 - "It happened again — one of my acquaintances gave up on the liberty movement. He made it clear in a very public way that he’s “leaving liberty'....

"Several of my friends have said they still love liberty, but can’t devote the time and energy into being a spokesperson and a public defender of the philosophy. I can certainly understand that.... Others, however, claim to no longer identify as a libertarian or that the message of liberty no longer makes sense. And these defections are much more curious.

"They’re curious because once you really understand the principles of liberty, it’s utterly illogical to then disown them. It’s like coming to understand that 2+2=4, only to later claim, 'No, I really just feel like 2+2=5 and that’s what I’m going with from now on'....

"Libertarianism holds that all humans have certain inalienable negative rights (life, liberty, and property) and that it is illegitimate for anyone to infringe on those rights.

"Other political philosophies maintain that people have positive rights granted by the government, such as the right to education, healthcare, or to watch football without protesters. The problem is that whenever one asserts positive rights, he necessarily infringes on another’s negative rights. You can’t have a right to education at the same time that teachers have the right to free association. You can’t have the right to health care and have the right to your property that pays for that health care. You can’t have the right to watch football without protests while others have the right to free speech.

"Libertarianism isn’t simply, 'You can do whatever you want,' as some will have you believe. Libertarianism is, 'You can do whatever you want as long as that doesn’t infringe on the same right of others.' It’s a beautiful, balanced and symmetric philosophy — the only one that makes logical sense....

"Of course, the principles of liberty may allow for some uncomfortable moments.... Enemies of liberty will take situations like that and use it to tarnish the philosophy. They will claim that if you allow a white supremacist to speak, you must be a white supremacist yourself! If you think even the top 1% should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, then you must hate poor people! If you’re skeptical of government funded climate science, you must be a denier!

"Liberty-haters want to paint libertarians as racist, money-grubbing, science deniers to make them abandon the cause, and it works sometimes. If your understanding of libertarianism is 'Hey, let’s do some weed!' then you risk losing faith when someone calls you names like that. But if you fully understand the logical beauty of the libertarian framework, there’s really no going back."

Read more: https://beinglibertarian.com/leaving-liberty-never-really-first-place/
'via Blog this'

Grab World

Grab World - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

May 26, 2017 - "Anti-libertarians have come up with many ingenious arguments to try to discredit libertarianism. Matt Bruenig’s 'Grab World' is certainly one of the most ingenious.

"Grab World (aka Grab-what-you-can World) is an imaginary world – a thought experiment – that Bruenig claims to have “first discussed here at Demos” back in January 2014; though a glance at the January article reveals that he actually grabbed the idea from libertarian philosopher Roderick Long. Here is how Long describes Grab World:

Imagine a world in which people freely expropriate other people’s possessions; nobody initiates force directly against another person’s body, but subject to that constraint, people regularly grab any external resource they can get their hands on, regardless of who has made or been using the resource. Any conception of aggression according to which the world so described is free of aggression is not a plausible one.”[6]

"Bruenig accepts all of Long’s account but the last sentence (which he omits). On the contrary, he insists that, “the grab-what-you-can world satisifes the non-aggression principle and no other world does.”[4]

"Hence the use of Grab World to refute libertarianism. The non-aggression principle (NAP) is basic to libertarianism; to Bruenig, Grab World is the only world that satisfies NAP; therefore, he concludes, to reject Grab World is to reject NAP, and with it libertarianism.

"Bruenig illustrates his point with what he calls a “reductio ad absurdum” argument.... While that explains what Bruenig wants to accomplish, it is not a knockdown reductio ad absurdum argument. It is not even a reductio ad absurdum argument, or much of an argument at all....

"Bruenig does say something that resembles an argument: 'It’s simple: 1) grabbing pieces of the world does not, by itself, involve initiating force against other people (if it did, then all resource use would be considered aggression), and 2) attacking someone for grabbing up a piece of the world does involve initiating force against other people.'

 "But neither point passes logical muster. 1) contains a quantification fallacy; it proves only that some acts of grabbing are not aggression, but concludes that no acts of grabbing are aggression; while 2) does not even try to prove, but simply assumes, that all attempts to stop someone else from grabbing things must involve 'attacking.'

"None of Bruenig’s repetitions, stipulations, definitions, or arguments show that Grab World, and only Grab World, follows from NAP. Of course, their failure to do so does not show that it doesn’t, either. To resolve that question, we will have to pay a visit to Grab World itself."

Read more:  https://www.nolanchart.com/grab-world
'via Blog this'

How a reductio ad absurdum does not work

by George J. Dance

Ever heard of Grab World? Matt Bruenig, an attorney who used to troll libertarians on progressive website Demos until he was fired for Twitter trolling, once used the idea of Grab World (a thought experiment invented by libertarian philosopher Roderick Long) to allegedly show how ridiculous the non-aggression principle is. When challenged by some libertarians, who in his words "couldn't handle this," Bruenig wrote a follow-up column on his own blog  "as a learning opportunity to help people understand how the reductio ad absurdum works."

He began by explaining that "A reductio is a type of argument in which you accept a premise and use it to generate a conclusion that strikes people as absurd," and then gave the argument form:

1. If X, then Y.
2. Y is totally absurd.
3. Therefore X is not true.

Next he fleshed out the form with his Grab World example: "the premise was justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle and the conclusion was people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that. So we plug it in.

1. If justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle, then people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.
2. It is totally absurd to say that 'people can come into the house you live in and grab up the stuff and you cannot use force to prevent that.'
3. Therefore it is not true that justice requires that we follow the non-aggression principle."

Almost every part of Bruenig's explanation is wrong. First, that is not "how the reductio ad absurdum works". His argument form is not even a reductio ad absurdum (RAA). An RAA, or indirect proof, works by positing an assumption (or supposition), and then proving it false by showing logically that it leads to a contradiction.

Second, Bruenig is confused about what premises and conclusions are. The premises in his argument are steps 1 and 2, and the conclusion is step 3. What he calls "the premise" and "the conclusion" are actually called the antecedent and consequent of a conditional. Third, what he calls "the premise" does not "generate" what he calls "the conclusion" - he merely asserts both together, as two halves of one unproven premise (step 1). 

Fourth, the above is not even a valid argument form (although it looks like one: modus tollens, or denying the consequent). It does not logically follow, from "If X, then Y" and "Y is totally absurd," that "X is not true" - all that would follow is "X is totally absurd," whatever Bruenig means by that. (He does not mean what logicians mean by "absurd," being contradictory or logically impossible.) 

Fifth, even if Bruenig's argument were valid, it would not be sound. A sound argument is a valid one with all true premises, which proves that its conclusion is true. There is no reason to think that either of Bruenig's premises is true. Almost every libertarian would deny the truth of his premise 1. Premise 2 looks a bit more plausible, but there is no reason to think it is true, either. (What if the "people [coming] into the house you live in" were bailiffs - or police seizing stolen goods - or even movers?)

In conclusion, let me show how an RAA argument really works:

1. Someone who knows logic would know what a valid argument is, and what the terms premise, conclusion, and reductio ad absurdum mean. (premise; see any logic text)
2. Assume Matt Bruenig is someone who knows logic. (assumption; beginning of RAA)
3. Then Matt Bruenig knows what a valid argument is, and what the terms premise, conclusion, and reductio ad absurdum mean. (1,2 hypothetical syllogism)
4. But Matt Bruenig does not know any of that. (premise; see above)
5. Therefore, Matt Bruenig is not someone who knows logic, (2-4 RAA)

I hope that readers find that argument instructive.

All that Bruenig's argument proves, on the other hand, is that he can pontificate on subjects about which he knows little or nothing: something that readers might find useful to keep in mind when reading his criticisms of libertarianism. 

dbzer0 on the NAP

dbzer0 on the NAP - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

May 15, 2017 - "Last week I wrote an article dealing with two claims that the non-aggression principle (or NAP) was useless. In return I received not one but two requests to deal with another such claim: this one on an anonymous blog called A Division by Zer0, which also argues that 'the Non-Aggression principle is useless as a moral guideline.'

"The blog author (dbzer0 for short) defines NAP as the principle that 'no human should aggress over another human. This is meant to mean the initial use of coercive force as well as the threat of such'.... This is fine, as long as 'aggress over another human' is interpreted as 'initiate force against other people or their property' (which does not say anything about what property is, or if there is any, much less who owns what property, so no question is begged).

"Using this principle, a libertarian can derive moral axioms (like 'Rape is wrong, because rape is aggression' or 'It is not wrong to forcibly prevent a rape, because forcibly preventing aggression is not aggression') and make moral judgments (like 'I shouldn’t rape Mary' or 'I should stop John from raping Mary'). That looks pretty useful to me; so why does dbzer0 claim it is useless?

Is NAP unnecessary?
dbzer0’s first argument is that it is unnecessary to have NAP as a rule, because 'other moral systems … already encompass such rules (with stipulation) as a natural consequence of their suggestions.' But one cannot simply follow 'other moral systems' in general instead of NAP; moral systems disagree both in 'rules' and 'stipulations', and where they do disagree one would have to follow one or another. That means either deciding which system to follow, or deciding on a principle that tells one which system to follow in which case. How does one decide that?

dbzer0 claims that every non-libertarian moral system ('anything else') is distinguished 'by the absence of the NAP,' but gives no reason to think that must be. Logically, a moral system can either (1) contain or 'encompass' NAP; (2) partly contain NAP, or (3) not contain NAP at all. Following NAP might indeed be useless if following any one of those systems resulted in making the exact same moral judgments as following NAP. But ... systems that would result in the same judgments would be type (1) systems; but how would following a type (1) system not be following NAP?

To make this clear, let us look at the specific alternatives dbZer0 discusses. One is Christianity, which as he points out has NAP-like rules such as 'Thou shalt not kill'. But, as he also points out, 'Thou shalt not kill' 'can lead to worse results (such as foregoing killing in self-defence)', precisely the result that NAP does not lead to. So that example is no evidence that NAP is useless, but the opposite: that NAP is a better rule than some alternatives."

Read more: https://web.archive.org/web/20200115004026/https://www.nolanchart.com/dbzero-on-the-nap
'via Blog this'

Non-Aggression and Entitlement

Non-Aggression and Entitlement - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

May 6, 2017 - "Some non-libertarians, and even some libertarians, claim that the non-aggression principle is useless. So let us see how one can argue without it.

The non-aggression principle – the principle that it is wrong to initiate force against other people or their property – has long been considered a basic principle of libertarian political theory. John Locke, for example, founded his theory on the principle that, 'Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.' Herbert Spencer took, as his fundamental principle, that: 'Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” (stress added). Many contemporary libertarians rely on the principle as well. Ron Paul, for example, claims that:

The core of libertarianism is respect for the life, liberty and property rights of each individual. This means that no one may initiate force against another, as that violates those natural rights. While many claim adherence to this principle, only libertarians apply the non-aggression axiom to the state.

Given the prominence of the non-aggression principle (NAP) in libertarian argument, it is not surprising that anti-libertarians reject it. However, nowadays it is common to find even libertarians who reject the principle, as well.

Not surprisingly, few if any directly reject NAP, by arguing that aggression is not wrong. 'For most individuals believe, and fervently so,' as Walter Block notes, 'that it is wrong to invade other people or their property. Who, after all, favors theft, murder or rape?' What one encounters instead are attempts to deny that NAP is meaningful; that it actually says anything substantive.

For example, anti-libertarian Matt Bruenig, a well-known internet troll, has dismissed NAP as simply useless in resolving any dispute. According to him, 'Non-aggression never does any argumentative work at any time'.... 

"If Breunig’s point were simply that the non-aggression principle is not sufficient by itself to resolve all disputes, because one also has to know who is entitled to what, then he would have a point; but he would be attacking a strawman. Block, in the article already cited, made the very same point....

 "Which brings us to libertarian scholar Matt Zwolinski; for the idea that people can so agree without relying on the NAP, simply by agreeing on a theory of entitlement, is exactly what Zwolinski argues."

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/non-aggression-and-entitlement
'via Blog this'

WWE wrestler Kane to run for mayor

WWE's Kane Runs For Mayor - Being Libertarian - Brandon Kirby:

March 25, 2017 -  "Best known for lighting people on fire and chokeslamming his enemies, World Wresting Entertainment’s Glenn Jacobs, better known as Kane, sets his sights on the political ring to run for Knox County [Tennessee] mayor, according to the Associated Press.

"Standing at 6’9 and weighing over 324lbs, The Devil’s Favourite Demon had a successful 22-year career in the WWE.... Outside of the world of wrestling, Jacobs and his wife own and operate Jacobs Insurance Associates, LLC, offering auto, business, flood, home, life, and motorcycle insurance.

"The successful businessman and entertainer’s bid for mayor is sure to excite libertarians. Jacobs is actively involved in libertarian politics, supporting Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, is a member of the Free State Project, and spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"In an interview with Fox Business, Jacobs cited Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Mary Ruwart as influences on his political thinking. The former world champion also cited the non-aggression principle as his guiding principle.

"In an interview with Tom Woods, Jacobs elaborated, 'Then I realized that it really is a philosophy that we’re talking about, you know — the nonaggression axiom, that the government should be bound by the same moral laws that the rest of us are. Once you realize that, you’re like, "Oh!" Your entire world opens up, and then your entire paradigm changes.'

"In the interview he also indicated that he believes taxation is theft."

Read more: https://beinglibertarian.com/wwes-kane-runs-mayor/
'via Blog this'

How Penn Jillette became a libertarian

Penn Jillette: How I Became a Libertarian - Newsweek:

April 30, 2016 - "The way the media tend to present libertarians is that we’re conservatives, or we’re people with money who want to smoke dope. And it’s really not true at all for me. I do not come to libertarianism because I’m a really successful businessperson, or a CEO, or because I have to fight regulations.

"I really come to it from a purely hippie point of view. I have always been a peacenik, and in the '80s I met a man named Tim Jenison. I was then just kind of your standard liberal, and Tim was libertarian.

"I started giving all the arguments for why the government had to be more powerful, and Tim said a really simple sentence to me. He said, 'Do you think it’s OK to punish people who’ve done nothing wrong?' And I said 'No' — even though I felt somewhere in my heart that it was a trick question. And then he said, 'Why is it OK to reward people who’ve done nothing right?'

"He said, 'Can’t you see that you can’t reward without punishing? They’re the same thing.' And that shut me up for a little while.

"Then Tim started saying, 'You know, you’re so against force. You’ve never hit anybody in your life. You’ve been beat up. You’ve been in carnival situations that have gone badly and people have hit you and you’ve not hit them back because you didn’t think it was life threatening. You are insanely peacenik in terms of the way you see war, what the country should do. Why do you think it’s so OK for the government to use force to get things done that you think are good ideas?'

"I started thinking that one really good definition of government is that government is supposed to have a monopoly on force. The government is the guys with the guns, and we are the people who tell the government what they can do. So in my morality, I shouldn’t be able to tell anyone to do something with a gun that I wouldn’t do myself.

"Now I want to add here that I am incompetent and I am a coward, so this is all theoretical, what I’m about to say — but if you asked me: Would I use a gun to stop a murder? Yeah! Would I use a gun to stop a rape? Yeah! Would I use the threat of a gun to stop a robbery? Yeah, I think you kind of have to. Would I use a gun to protect our country and our way of life? Yeah!

Would I use a gun to build a library? No!

"Do I think libraries are really important? Wicked important! Really important!.... So will I give my money to help someone build a library? Yeah! Will I ask other people to give their money to help build a library? Yeah! Will I beg other people to give money to build a library? Yeah! Will I lie to people to get them to give money to build a library? A little bit.

"Will I use a gun to get someone to build a library? No.

"And that is, in a nutshell, my entire view of politics: that I have to look over what people want the government to do and say 'If I were given all the power, would I use a gun to accomplish what they want to accomplish?'"

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565
'via Blog this'

Marc Allan Feldman: Beyond white Libertarianism

Beyond White Libertarianism | Marc Allan Feldman | The Blogs | The Times of Israel:

November 3, 2015 - "I am an American, but I am not a Democrat  or a Republican.  I am a Libertarian, a member of the largest national third party in the US.  We are believers in liberty, individual freedom, and limited government.  We support marriage equality for same-sex couples, gun rights, and ending the drug wars.  We oppose international military and economic intervention and aid.  I am a strong supporter of Israel and I am a friend of the IDF.  I support Israel with my credit card and my checkbook, through trade, tourism, education, and philanthropy, but I believe the correct amount of U.S. government aid should be zero.  I am a Life Member of the Libertarian Party,  I serve on the Libertarian National Committee, and I am a candidate for the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States....

"It was in 2009 that I learned about the Libertarian Party, the party of principle. The center of the philosophy was the non-aggression principle or NAP, expressed in the Libertarian pledge: 'I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.' This is the message of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, and social tolerance, ending the drug wars and military interventions around the world, supporting the second amendment, and assuring marriage equality.

"Legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage have led people to ask if we are experiencing a 'Libertarian moment.' But the Libertarian Party remains very small, and Rand Paul, the most libertarian-ish of the Republicans, has gone from being 'the most interesting politician in America' to nearly an afterthought. I found it strange to go to Libertarian meetings and see a group nearly completely composed of idealistic white men. Why would a movement of freedom be composed of one of the least oppressed groups? This has always been a puzzle to me....

"The Libertarian Party must embrace, not only gay rights, but also women’s liberation, black civil rights, the Hispanic fight for quality education.... This will not happen by giving more power to government or giving more power to corporations that control our government. Laws do not empower the individual. Laws take power away from individuals and give it to government to enforce those laws. It must be through effective private, voluntary, action of empowered individuals.

"We must remain dedicated to the ethical principle of non-aggression. At the same time we need a new political principle, a pro-empowerment principle. 'Act to maximize the power of all individuals, (white, black, Latino, LGBTQ, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc.) to make decisions to control themselves, their property, and their environment, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.' We cannot remain simply the party of Gays, Guns, and Ganja. We must also become the party of women’s liberation, Hispanic education, religious rights and civil rights, and #BlackLivesMatter.

"Call me an intersectional Libertarian populist, or just call me a New Libertarian."

Read more: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/beyond-white-libertarianism/
'via Blog this'

Non-Aggression and Self-Refutation

Non-Aggression and Self-Refutation - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

"J.H. Bennett argues that the Non-Aggression Principle, used as a basis for law, is self-refuting, and believers in it must therefore be pacifists. How sound is his argument? 

April 13, 2016 -  "The Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP — the principle that it is morally wrong, and should be legally prohibited, for any person or group to initiate force against any other person or group — has long been central to libertarian political thought. As the Libertarian Party was founded as a political vehicle for libertarian ideas, it is not surprising that NAP also plays a central role in the party’s basic documents.....

"As libertarianism and the Libertarian Party have grown over the years, so has the opposition to both. It is not surprising, then, to find more non-libertarians and anti-libertarians challenging NAP. What is surprising is to find libertarians, and Libertarian Party members, challenging NAP. At least I was surprised to recently read an interview in which Austin Petersen — not merely a Libertarian Party member, but one running for the Party’s presidential nomination — did just that....

"Where did Petersen get such a strange (to my mind) idea of NAP? Fortunately he has a website, The Libertarian Republic; going there, I was able to find an article there by him with the promising title, “The Non Aggression Principle (NAP) Is Pacifist Anarchism, and Should be Scrapped”.... [That]  brought me to a 25-page scholarly article, by J.H. Bennett of Canada’s Simon Fraser University, that indeed argues that “that for adherents of the non-aggression principle, the only consistent position is strict pacifism.”

"Given Petersen’s unqualified endorsement, we must assume that this is his argument as well. So, while the following are Bennett’s arguments rather than Petersen’s, one has to treat them as the same. If Bennett’s argument succeeds, Petersen’s succeeds; and if Bennett’s argument fails, Petersen’s fails."

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/non-aggression-and-self-refutation
'via Blog this'

What the U.S. Libertarian Party 'pledge' means

"To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." – Libertarian Party membership pledge

I pledge allegiance ... to what? | KN@PPSTER - Tom Knapp:

February 25, 2006 - "Often, when debating the meaning of 'the pledge,' Libertarians cite David F. Nolan, the 'founder' (with a few others, but generally recognized as the prime mover in the founding) of the Libertarian Party, to the effect that 'the pledge' was simply intended to let the FBI know that the members of this new political party weren't bomb-throwing revolutionists who would shortly be assaulting the Nixon White House with molotov cocktails.... [see video below - editor]....

"I've stated the content of the pledge. In every form I've seen, it includes the very specific phrase 'initiation of force.' That's important. That phrase has a history which pre-dates the formation of the LP by at least a decade-and-a-half and possibly longer. It is a phrase which carried great weight among the adherents of two particular schools of libertarian thought throughout the 1960s: The Objectivists and the Misesian "anarcho-capitalists" (i.e. the disciples/compatriots, respectively, of Ayn Rand and of Murray N. Rothbard).

"Nolan – or at least those who cite him – expect the rest of us to believe that the occurrence of the phrase in the LP's membership pledge was a mere coincidence: That it did not arise from the ubiquitous use of that phrase within the movement from which the party emerged. Even at first blush, that assertion looks pretty untenable.... In the very first paragraph of the article which he wrote in 1971, promoting the formation of the Libertarian Party ... Nolan describes the movement to which he belongs, and which he hopes to form into a party, as a coalition of 'Randists, Miseists (sic), and elements of the old "radical right"'....

"Nolan's biography at the Advocates for Self-Government site specifically lists Ayn Rand as a writer who 'cemented his innate libertarianism.' Is it possible that someone who regarded Rand in such terms, and whose libertarianism took the form of political action, would entirely miss the core principle of the political branch of her philosophy?

'Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate -- do you hear me? No man may start -- the use of physical force against others.' -- from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged (1957), and For the New Intellectual (1961), by Ayn Rand....

"Next let's look at Rothbard -- leader of the second faction which Nolan wanted to form a party around....

'The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.' --- from "War, Peace and the State" (1963), by Murray N. Rothbard

"The actual phrase 'initiation of force' seems to have crept into Rothbard's personal vocabulary later rather than sooner....

'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.' – from For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973), by Murray N. Rothbard....

"Taken in its obvious historical context, the pledge clearly derives from a Randian and/or Rothbardian worldview and therefore – at a bare minimum – clearly and indisputably binds its takers to a no-coercive-taxes approach (which even the 'Randian minarchists' held to), and less clearly and less indisputably (but still arguably) to Rothbardian anarchism.

"The only way to get around that conclusion is to assert that the framers of the pledge were a bunch of drooling morons who in some strange trance state spontaneously and collectively forgot the entire content of the ideas they stood for, while simultaneously functioning efficiently enough to put together an organization to politically support said ideas ... and who just happened to randomly pick words out of the dictionary which were identical to nearly two decades of predominant phraseology relating to those ideas, for the purpose of saying something entirely different."

Read more: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-pledge-allegiance-to-what.html  'via Blog this'
Published under a Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication

Meet the musical, libertarian d'Oudney family

Interviewing Astra: International libertarian, musician, thinker, activist | Examiner.com - Garry Reed:

February 10, 2016 - "If music is an international language it also seems that American-style 'Non-Aggression Principle' libertarianism has also gone global as well, at least in the form of one hot bilingual musician named Astra F. d'Oudney and her musical parents Kenn and Joanna d'Oudney.

"Astra, born in England but living in France, defines herself as 'Chanteuse, Guitarist, Musician, Recording Artist, Singer-Songwriter' on her Facebook page. She does all of the vocals, lead and backup, on her albums but has also performed 450 live concerts in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Her music includes rock, pop, ballads and mood music.

"Astra's parents have played over 1000 concerts throughout Western Europe themselves and founded Scorpio Recording Company Ltd in London in 1983. They're not only a family of musicians but advocate rights and principles familiar to American libertarians.

"Together Kenn and Joanna d'Oudney have written Cannabis: The facts, human rights and the law: The report that includes a Foreword by Milton Friedman. While most Americans want cannabis decriminalized so they can smoke pot without getting arrested The Report, as they condense its title, is much broader and deeper in its scope. According to Astra's own summary 'The Report collates empirical evidence and the findings of fact of official clinical studies which exonerate cannabis and vindicate all cultivation, trade, possession and use. The Report establishes massive ulterior money-motive and perjury behind prohibition; and indicts government. The Report presents irrefutable legal grounds for restoration, relegalisation, amnesty and restitution.'

"Together the three d'Oudneys also run the Democracy Defined Campaign that advocates, among other issues, 'adoption of the genuine Trial by Jury.' By 'genuine' they mean the right and duty of jury nullification. Astra, in short, is not your typical pop diva. To learn more Libertarian News Examiner engaged Astra in this short interview.

Libertarian News Examiner: Do you consider yourself a libertarian in the American 'non-aggression principle' sense?
Astra: We are libertarians who champion individual rights – never impinging upon the rights of others – and 'regulation' of the role of government by jurors through Trial by Jury, as explicitly advocated by co-author of the US Constitution, James Madison; see "James Madison: The Publius Fallacy of Number Ten" in Democracy Defined: The Manifesto by Kenn d’Oudney. The campaign is all-inclusive and we avoid attaching any party-political labels to it....

LNE: You're clearly a second generation libertarian but what else attracted you to libertarianism besides your parents?
Astra: Issues of justice and liberty attracted me to non-party-political support for the constitutional laws which uphold universal secular human values. Without them we lose everything which makes life worthwhile and meaningful."

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/interviewing-astra-international-libertarian-musician-thinker-activist
'via Blog this'

The Libertarian Moment is alive and well

The Libertarian Moment Is Alive and Well, Regardless of Rand Paul's Campaign - Tom Mullen, Huffington Post:

October 5, 2015 - "Rand Paul's campaign reported $2.5 million in donations for the entire third quarter, a precipitous drop from his previous reports.... That and anemic poll numbers have inspired many to not only pronounce Paul's presidential campaign dead, but to gleefully declare the so-called 'Libertarian Moment' over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 "Anyone who believes the presidential election is a barometer of how libertarian America is becoming doesn't understand libertarianism and isn't paying attention to what's happening in the real world. Libertarians don't believe government solves anything, no matter who is running it. The purest libertarians refuse to vote on principle.

 "As radical as that might sound, almost half of all eligible American voters behave the same way, if not for the same reasons.... For the most part, they're not stupid. They just don't care. They may say they support this or that candidate when a microphone is shoved in their face, but in reality they live their lives, do their jobs and run their businesses without giving politics a second thought. This is an inherently libertarian worldview and it's growing....

"What Americans are interested in is the market and what it can offer them, regardless of what the government says or even legislates. Sharing economy companies like Uber and Airbnb are growing exponentially because they offer higher quality products at substantially lower prices. They are able to do so precisely because they either sidestep or openly flout the protectionist regulation supported by their established competitors....

"[G]un sales have exploded in the past fifteen years, despite strong anti-gun rhetoric following highly publicized mass shootings. This isn't limited to red states in flyover country. Gun sales have even seen a meteoric rise in deep blue California....

"Almost half of U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana in open defiance of federal law. Four states have legalized recreational use. They have consistently used the libertarian non-aggression principle as their reasoning: if it does not harm the person or property of someone else, the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit it.

"An overwhelming majority of states legalized gay marriage ... ten states ... through their legislatures.... [A] majority of Americans support gay marriage, but oppose forcing businesses to serve same sex couples if they don't want to ... perfectly consistent with the libertarian principle that government force should never be brought against those who have not aggressed against the person or property of another....

"The future will be even more libertarian than the present. Technology and the marketplace are threatening to render centuries-old government institutions largely irrelevant. What meaning will trade regulations have when 3-D printers disrupt the manufacturing industry? What will the who-will-build-the-roads crowd say to libertarians when hovercraft technology reaches its full market potential? How will the Federal Reserve control the economy when Bitcoin or its successors reaches theirs?"

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/the-libertarian-moment-is_b_8242024.html

The Case for moderate libertarianism

Opinion: The case for moderate Libertarianism - Steven V. Uccio, Times of Trenton:

December 15, 2014 - "Libertarianism is based solely on the single, guiding philosophy called the non-aggression principle: the idea that you should not use force against another person or accept it from someone else. That's it. No more and no less. Libertarians are often wary of the government and love the Constitution as a means to protect their rights. Many are interested in such things as bitcoin and silver as alternate currencies, because we question the government's monopoly on money and are concerned about the devaluation of the dollar. Those things are not explicitly necessary to being a Libertarian, however, and do not define us.

"Libertarians don't like to use force. We like to make things as voluntary as possible. We hate to ban and we hate to mandate. The biggest problem with Libertarianism comes when we consider our taxes. Income and property taxes are inherently un-Libertarian. The government is forcefully taking money from its citizens. If you don't believe that, then stop paying your taxes and see what happens. If you continue not to pay, you will eventually be sent to prison. Taxation is theft.

"Some Libertarians believe there should be no income taxes or property taxes. They have very thoughtfully come up with a plan and written entire books for either a voluntary or fee-based form of government and, I'm sure, in theory, it sounds very good. It might even work. The problem is that it is very abstract and high-concept. I don't want to be like that. I want to be very realistic and practical in my approach to Libertarianism. I live in the real world and realize I can't undo hundreds of years of history and the growing creep of government in a single day.

"I believe we should have maximum control over our lives and our money and we should be allowed to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. I think the government's job is to protect our rights, respect our privacy, do as little as possible, fight wars only to defend us, and have no debt. Its job is not to help people, but to ensure that conditions exist in which people can take care of themselves and by which private charities or an extremely limited social safety net can take care of the rest. That would be a tremendous step forward compared to what our federal government does now and I don't think it's outside the values of the average person."

Read more: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/opinion_the_case_for_moderate_libertarianism.html

See also: ''The Non-Aggression Principle", by George J. Dance