One way would be to say that libertarianism is the political philosophy dedicated to maximizing the rights of the individual. Another way is with the NAP or ZAP, which means "Non-Aggression Principle" or "Zero-Aggression Principle." This means that no person has the right to initiate aggression against another person.
...
Since no person has the right to initiate aggression, no person may delegate that right. Not even if they get together in a large group and do so by voting.
Everything else libertarian derives from that.
Here's the problem with that explanation. Okay, the two problems. The little problem is that you haven't shown any means by which we can determine what is or isn't aggression. For instance, you say private property isn't aggression and arkirk says it is. If we can't determine who's right, then you haven't actually defined libertarianism. All you've done is set us up for a "You're initiating aggression."/"No, you are!" shout-fest. But as I said, that's a little problem. All you need to do to deal with it is give us the libertarian definition of aggression. We can incorporate that into your explanation and then Bob's your uncle. (So, since you aren't answering my question about how to find out who's right, please define "aggression" as libertarians understand it.)
The big problem is that you've given us not one but two definitions: maximizing rights and zero aggression initiation. You appear to be taking for granted that the two are equivalent. But it's not at all self-evident that they're equivalent. It seems obvious to me that there exist circumstances where somebody initiating aggression against somebody else will do a better job of protecting individuals' rights than if he refrains from initiating aggression. If such circumstances indeed exist then once again you haven't defined libertarianism. All you've done is given libertarians an unfalsifiability engine -- a contradiction lets one logically derive anything. So if you want to produce a workable explanation of libertarianism you're going to need to either prove the counterintuitive proposition that your two definitions really are equivalent, or else drop one of the two.
Even though I did give enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions, by giving libertarian principles, apparently it wasn't enough.
As I wrote, nobody is allowed to
initiate aggression. So what is aggression.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to life. Therefore we are against murder, assault, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to liberty. Therefore we are against kidnapping, slavery, military draft, coerced servitude, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we area against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.
Yes, liberals, conservatives, and progressive are against all that too. But as I said before, what makes libertarianism different is that it
applies those "don't do it" principles to the government as well, not carving out a big exception the way conservoprogressives do. Even the government shall not initiate aggression to violate the rights to life, liberty, and property. The function of the government is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property, and nothing more.
There are two reasons we are so anti-government. The first reason is that of all the actors in civil society today, none compare to the government in violating those rights. Even criminal mafias fall shy when compared to the government. The second is in the phrase "and nothing more" and almost every political discussion among conservoprogressives is in the "more" and not in the "protect the rights to life, liberty, and property".
