By: Gary D. Barnett
I have recently had many discussions about the term “libertarianism.” In the past, I did on occasion refer to myself as libertarian, but prefaced with the word “purist.” I have decided that this term is no longer compatible with my very strict beliefs concerning freedom and liberty.
Many of these debates about libertarianism have been with Professor of Economics, Walter Block, of Loyola University New Orleans. I sent this letter to him recently after a long exchange about libertarianism and voting:
Dear Walter,
“After researching more, it seems that the most accurate definition of libertarianism is belief in “as much liberty as possible” and also “limited government.” This is contradictory. In addition, the term libertarianism is based upon many viewpoints with multiple perspectives. This in my mind negates it as a genuine philosophy because it is much too broad a definition to be of value.
Because many libertarians believe in voting, limited welfare, and a role for the state, there is no line drawn between anarchists and “leaning” libertarians. I posit then that it would be much more useful to identify oneself more clearly, so as to avoid confusion.
Voluntaryism for example, as described by Auberon Herbert, is based on a solid premise of voluntary behavior at every level, which obviously negates the state. It is not all inclusive and is similar to peaceful anarchy. These terms have actual meaning, unlike the catch-all term libertarian.
I bring this up because you continue to claim that electoral politics, voting in particular, does not violate the non-aggression principle, and that libertarians can vote to elect politicians without sacrificing their position concerning liberty, the NAP in particular. I completely disagree. All government is based on force, and therefore is incompatible with liberty. Whether you believe it or not, the fact remains that voting legitimizes government action, and that in and of itself allows aggression by the state. In addition, most all who vote knowingly do so in order to gain an advantage over others through a proxy system. Whether theft or state murder, those who vote to allow a government to exist, are just as guilty of aggression as those elected by them who commit aggression. To attempt to separate responsibility in this case is fraudulent, and also dishonest.
I am not attempting to split hairs here, but it is very dangerous from any critical thinker’s perspective, to lump any number of alternate positions together in order to form a “big tent.” This seems completely counter productive if any true clarity is to be established. Supporting a big tent necessarily weakens any principled position, and also is a direct assault on real liberty that is based upon the natural rights of man.
Watered down “beliefs” are not beliefs at all. Attempting to have it both ways is akin to trickery. That is why I know that voting for politicians is a fool’s game.“
I thought it might be productive to clarify my position concerning liberty. Although I do not care for labels, I will say that I am a peaceful anarchist or Voluntaryist type, as I have no use for the state apparatus or government at any level. I do believe in natural rights and total voluntary exchange. So long as one does not harm another, or their property, and does not infringe on the liberty of others, then he should be able to do as he chooses without restriction.
Since the state is based entirely on force, and cannot exist without force, it is to be shunned by any who truly understand the freedom philosophy. Non-aggression means exactly that; no aggression is ever permissable whatsoever in any free society. Therefore, the only legitimate use of force can be actual self-defense, but once any real threat is squashed, then all force must cease.
If we all lived by this rule, a peaceful and harmonious world would be the result.
Copyright © 2019 GaryDBarnett.com