I'm surprised that you even had to ask that. Several positions held by libertarians are well known. Our opposition to the drug war is exceedingly well known, so much so that even you must have heard of it. Likewise we are all in favor of sexual freedom, opposing laws that punish homosexuality. We were in favor of gay marriage back in the 1970s, and Hillary wasn't in favor of it until just a few years ago.
I've given the basis for our positions. That should really be enough for you to figure out where we stand on almost anything. There are some issues that divide libertarians, but on most of them we are in agreement. So think - we believe in the NAP, described in post 79.
What, then, is our position on foreign policy?
Your position would be to allow only defensive aggression.
Can you provide me with an example of a war in which all of the parties involved didn't claim that they were only responding to the aggression of others?
What, then, is our position on whether or not people should be allowed to form a union?
Based on the principle of the right of association libertarians would let any group of people freely form a union and would interfere with the bootjacked power of the government only if some party; employer, union member employee, non-union employee, etc., was meet with aggression.
Wait a minute, like the question about war above, what happens if two or more of the parties involved claim that they are being met with aggression? Wasn't that the rule rather than the exception in the early days of union organizing in the US?
What, then, is our position on free speech?
In the coming libertarian paradise will people be able to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery?
Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms.
Retreating into semantics doesn't really move the discussion along.
Let me ask the same question without the inflammatory 'slavery' word in it. And I will do exactly what you invited us to do, I will deduce the majority libertarian position on the subject from the libertarian principles.
In the pure libertarian society will adults be able to sell themselves into indentured servitude?
I would say yes, because of the libertarian principles of maximum individual freedoms, often expressed as 'owning oneself,' and support for the unfettered free market. And that indentured servitude doesn't involve any aggression against any of the parties entering into the arrangement.
Will they be able to sell their children into slavery?
Absolutely not, and there is no way to derive that position from the NAP. That is
not even wrong.
I question whether the NAP is the single determining factor in this or even in most cases. As you can see above I applied the libertarian principles of owning oneself and the free market into deducing the majority libertarian position on the question of indentured servitude.
Elsewhere in the thread I posted a quote, repeated and expanded here, from Murray Rothbard in which he applied libertarian principles to conclude this,
In a purely libertarian society, the young child is not as bereft as might at first appear. For in such a society, every parent would have the right to sell their guardianship rights to others. In short, there would be a free market in babies and other children. What? A free market in babies? Isn’t this equivalent to slavery, to the treating of babies as mere objects? No, what it would mean is that parents who now neglect or dislike their children would be able to sell their offspring to those parents who would desire and care for them properly. Every party involved would gain by the actions of such a market: ... William Rickenbacker, in his column in National Review, has, in fact, recently advocated such a free-baby market.
I have already provided the reference to the quote. Rothbard and Rickenbacker, the son of the World War I flying ace, are both considered to be prominent libertarians. I hope that you agree.
Thankfully Rothbard says selling and buying babies and children in the coming purely libertarian society is not the same as slavery. That it is not the child that is being sold, it is only the guardianship rights that are being sold. This is good news, it certainly falls short of slavery because these guardianship rights expire completely at some age of majority. But it begs the question, who sets the majority age and who defines the guardianship rights? And who enforces them? Does this mean that there has to be a third party with authority involved in the transaction?
Applying the NAP or the other libertarian principles doesn't seem to provide an answer.
Rothbard in the same essay goes on to say that the purely libertarian society will do away with child labor and compulsory education laws. That parents under presumably their guardianship rights can decide that the child should work instead of going to school. This seems to draw an extremely small distinction between what libertarians would accept and what we call
slavery indentured servitude. Don't you agree?