What is Libertarianism?

[untermensche]

People on the left have been opposed to the Drug War since the day ReaganNixon started it.

Fify.

True, but there was a period of relaxation in the 1970's.

In New York for example the penalties for the possession of small quantities of marijuana were reduced to the level of a parking ticket. Very few employers were screening for drugs.

Reagan came in and the Drug War escalated with a fury.

It led to the militarization of the police and the private prison industrial complex.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Post 79. Page 8. I said what it is.

What is that "everything else?"

Our positions on social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy.

Who is this "our"? The Libertarian Party? Because other than them, there is little agreed upon positions. Some advocate for a strong central government for foreign policy to oppose force by other nations, some advocate that only individuals can do this, others are pie-in-the-sky idealists who believe that once libertarinaism is embraced by all there will be no aggression. Is there a libertarian group that we can refer to that might match closely with your concept of libertarianism? Or should we just keep our previous conclusions and "strawmen" arguments as valid beliefs?

 

[SimpleDon]

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?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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?

And there would never be any aggression is such an agreement and age of majority would simply mean a new contract.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Let me just put this out there.

My problem with libertarianism is that is that it appears to need for everyone involved to be nice. If everyone was nice, practically any form of economic, political, and/or social arrangement would work and work beautifully.

I remember my kid asking me, as I had asked my mom, and I am sure she had asked her mom, and on back through the generations, why couldn't everybody just be nice to each other and share with each other and not hit each other? Then no one would get in trouble and there would be no poor people and everyone would be happy.

For Libertarianism to work, it appears to me to demand such a world. And that world does not exist. Nor will such a world just arise if we act as if it is already here and begin practicing libertarian policies.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Let me just put this out there.

My problem with libertarianism is that is that it appears to need for everyone involved to be nice. If everyone was nice, practically any form of economic, political, and/or social arrangement would work and work beautifully.

I remember my kid asking me, as I had asked my mom, and I am sure she had asked her mom, and on back through the generations, why couldn't everybody just be nice to each other and share with each other and not hit each other? Then no one would get in trouble and there would be no poor people and everyone would be happy.

For Libertarianism to work, it appears to me to demand such a world. And that world does not exist. Nor will such a world just arise if we act as if it is already here and begin practicing libertarian policies.

Even in the !Kung People don't exist in this world, although their society and customs promote it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Let me just put this out there.

My problem with libertarianism is that is that it appears to need for everyone involved to be nice. If everyone was nice, practically any form of economic, political, and/or social arrangement would work and work beautifully.

I remember my kid asking me, as I had asked my mom, and I am sure she had asked her mom, and on back through the generations, why couldn't everybody just be nice to each other and share with each other and not hit each other? Then no one would get in trouble and there would be no poor people and everyone would be happy.

For Libertarianism to work, it appears to me to demand such a world. And that world does not exist. Nor will such a world just arise if we act as if it is already here and begin practicing libertarian policies.

You misunderstand both libertarianism and reality.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals. It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society. Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem - that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare. Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead. The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

that government is the answer to any perceived problem - that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

I didn't know of this was a platform of major parties.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Let me just put this out there.

My problem with libertarianism is that is that it appears to need for everyone involved to be nice. If everyone was nice, practically any form of economic, political, and/or social arrangement would work and work beautifully.

I remember my kid asking me, as I had asked my mom, and I am sure she had asked her mom, and on back through the generations, why couldn't everybody just be nice to each other and share with each other and not hit each other? Then no one would get in trouble and there would be no poor people and everyone would be happy.

For Libertarianism to work, it appears to me to demand such a world. And that world does not exist. Nor will such a world just arise if we act as if it is already here and begin practicing libertarian policies.

You misunderstand both libertarianism and reality.

Enlighten me.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals.

I got that part.

It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society.

How will it be better and what do you mean by better?

Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem

Which party has that statement in it's platform?

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform? Who among political thinkers, non libertarian political thinkers, has every put forth as a first principle the above statement? Who here has ever posted such a statement?

Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead.

How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?

The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

Is government power the only power that needs to be curtailed? And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

 

[skepticalbip]

that government is the answer to any perceived problem - that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

I didn't know of this was a platform of major parties.

I didn't say platform. I said as many members of those other parties appear to believe. I assume it is so because any time I hear them mention anything they don't think is just right, their solution is that the government should pass a law to correct it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I didn't know of this was a platform of major parties.

I didn't say platform. I said as many members of those other parties appear to believe. I assume it is so because any time I hear them mention anything they don't like, their solution is that the government should pass a law to correct it.

Sounds like more perception than reality.

 

[marc]

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform?

Not exactly a party, but isn't that the belief of the Catholic church? Just change 'political leadership' to pope.

 

[skepticalbip]

You misunderstand both libertarianism and reality.

Enlighten me.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals.

I got that part.

It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society.

How will it be better and what do you mean by better?

Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem

Which party has that statement in it's platform?

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform? Who among political thinkers, non libertarian political thinkers, has every put forth as a first principle the above statement? Who here has ever posted such a statement?

Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead.

How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?

The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

Is government power the only power that needs to be curtailed? And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

You should practice your reading for comprehension.

Do you not understand the phrase, "abuse of power". Do you not already know that the expansion of government enforcement powers has already reached the point that the crime of driving with a burned out tail light or even littering can lead to the offender being shot by a police officer (especially if the offender is black) with no repercussions to the officer. All the officer needs to do is report that the offender was belligerent when stopped and that he feared for his safety. "Belligerent" could be the offender expressing his dislike of police tactics. (this in practice if not in law makes arguing with a police officer a capital offense subject to summary execution.)

Because of these expanded enforcement powers, most of us feel compelled to not express our opinions (not invoke our first amendment rights of free speech) in such situations because we know that anything but cordiality and subservience could result in more citations, arrest, or possibly the ultimate. This is the same reason why people meekly obey official directions in the police states we see as oppressive.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Enlighten me.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals.

I got that part.

It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society.

How will it be better and what do you mean by better?

Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem

Which party has that statement in it's platform?

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform? Who among political thinkers, non libertarian political thinkers, has every put forth as a first principle the above statement? Who here has ever posted such a statement?

Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead.

How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?

The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

Is government power the only power that needs to be curtailed? And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

You should practice your reading for comprehension.

Do you not understand the phrase, "abuse of power". Do you not already know that the expansion of government enforcement powers has already reached the point that the crime of driving with a burned out tail light or even littering can lead to the offender being shot by a police officer (especially if the offender is black) with no repercussions to the officer. All the officer needs to do is report that the offender was belligerent when stopped and that he feared for his safety. "Belligerent" could be the offender expressing his dislike of police tactics. (this in practice if not in law makes arguing with a police officer a capital offense subject to summary execution.)

Because of these expanded enforcement powers, most of us feel compelled to not express our opinions (not invoke our first amendment rights of free speech) in such situations because we know that anything but cordiality and subservience could result in more citations, arrest, or possibly the ultimate. This is the same reason why people meekly obey official directions in the police states we see as oppressive.

I understand that when people do not answer direct question directly it usually because they don't know, they know and don't want to say, or they never really wanted to discuss the matter in the first place and just wanted to profess their faith and then have whatever they believe not challenged in any way.

Care to answer the questions NOW?

 

[skepticalbip]

Enlighten me.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals.

I got that part.

It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society.

How will it be better and what do you mean by better?

Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem

Which party has that statement in it's platform?

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform? Who among political thinkers, non libertarian political thinkers, has every put forth as a first principle the above statement? Who here has ever posted such a statement?

Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead.

How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?

The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

Is government power the only power that needs to be curtailed? And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

You should practice your reading for comprehension.

Do you not understand the phrase, "abuse of power". Do you not already know that the expansion of government enforcement powers has already reached the point that the crime of driving with a burned out tail light or even littering can lead to the offender being shot by a police officer (especially if the offender is black) with no repercussions to the officer. All the officer needs to do is report that the offender was belligerent when stopped and that he feared for his safety. "Belligerent" could be the offender expressing his dislike of police tactics. (this in practice if not in law makes arguing with a police officer a capital offense subject to summary execution.)

Because of these expanded enforcement powers, most of us feel compelled to not express our opinions (not invoke our first amendment rights of free speech) in such situations because we know that anything but cordiality and subservience could result in more citations, arrest, or possibly the ultimate. This is the same reason why people meekly obey official directions in the police states we see as oppressive.

I understand that when people do not answer direct question directly it usually because they don't know, they know and don't want to say, or they never really wanted to discuss the matter in the first place and just wanted to profess their faith and then have whatever they believe not challenged in any way.

Do you mean like you completely ignoring the post you supposedly are responding to that gives one example of many that could be given demonstrating the abusive assumption of expansive enforcement power by the government? It was a response to one of your questions, “How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?” (hmmm actually it was three of your questions)

Care to answer the questions NOW?

Some of your questions have been answered in previous posts, some are absurd strawmen, some are either intentional misunderstanding or ignorance.

And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

Why the fuck would you assume that some power needs to be in place to replace the powers denied to the government? A couple examples: why would we need some power to replace eliminating the current government regulation that all boats that are powered be registered and all that are over 12 feet in length be registered even if not powered? Why would we need some power to replace not allowing the government to outlaw marijuana use? You seem to have no idea of the concept of freedom.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Enlighten me.

The idea of libertarinaism is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government control over individuals.

I got that part.

It doesn't pretend to create a perfect society, only a better society.

How will it be better and what do you mean by better?

Libertarians don't believe, as many members of the other major parties appear to, that government is the answer to any perceived problem

Which party has that statement in it's platform?

- that our political leadership is all knowing, infallible, and benevolent, whose only concern is our welfare.

Again, which party has that statement in its platform? Who among political thinkers, non libertarian political thinkers, has every put forth as a first principle the above statement? Who here has ever posted such a statement?

Libertarians recognize the abuse of power both here and in other countries when governments assume too much power and where it can lead.

How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?

The only insurance against ever expanding governmental power is to set specific limits on what the government is allowed to do.

Is government power the only power that needs to be curtailed? And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

You should practice your reading for comprehension.

Do you not understand the phrase, "abuse of power". Do you not already know that the expansion of government enforcement powers has already reached the point that the crime of driving with a burned out tail light or even littering can lead to the offender being shot by a police officer (especially if the offender is black) with no repercussions to the officer. All the officer needs to do is report that the offender was belligerent when stopped and that he feared for his safety. "Belligerent" could be the offender expressing his dislike of police tactics. (this in practice if not in law makes arguing with a police officer a capital offense subject to summary execution.)

Because of these expanded enforcement powers, most of us feel compelled to not express our opinions (not invoke our first amendment rights of free speech) in such situations because we know that anything but cordiality and subservience could result in more citations, arrest, or possibly the ultimate. This is the same reason why people meekly obey official directions in the police states we see as oppressive.

I understand that when people do not answer direct question directly it usually because they don't know, they know and don't want to say, or they never really wanted to discuss the matter in the first place and just wanted to profess their faith and then have whatever they believe not challenged in any way.

Do you mean like you completely ignoring the post you supposedly are responding to that gives one example of many that could be given demonstrating the abusive assumption of expansive enforcement power by the government? It was a response to one of your questions, “How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?”

Care to answer the questions NOW?

Some of your questions have been answered in previous posts, some are absurd strawmen, some are either intentional misunderstanding or ignorance.

And once you curtail government power, do you have any thoughts on what kind of power will rise to replace it?

Why the fuck would you assume that some power needs to be in place to replace the powers denied to the government? A couple examples: why would we need some power to replace eliminating the current government regulation that all boats that are powered be registered and all that are over 12 feet in length be registered even if not powered? Why would we need some power to replace not allowing the government to outlaw marijuana use? You seem to have no idea of the concept of freedom.

1) You did not answer the questions posed.
2) You then attack or dismiss the questions posed. as either being answered (and then provide no links or post numbers), being strawmen (with no explanations as to how they are strawmen) or being misunderstanding or ignorance (which kind of is the purpose of questions, to clear up misunderstanding and alleviate ignorance, neither of which you have so far done)
3)I don't assume power will rise to replace government power, I know it will. If history is any indication, if some institution or individual loses power over an activity or good, something or someone else gains it. Libertarianism is about ceding power back to the people, is it not? Power doesn't go away, it merely moves from a few hands to many, correct?

Care to answer the questions now?

 

[skepticalbip]

Libertarianism is about ceding power back to the people, is it not? Power doesn't go away, it merely moves from a few hands to many, correct?

We are apparently using the word, "power" differently. For me power is control over others. Control of self without outside coercion is freedom. So, by my usage, denying the government some powers means that those powers go away making the people more free - - the controlling power eliminated.

1) You did not answer the questions posed.

The post you keep ignoring was in response to your question, “How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?”

So explain why what I see as such government excesses are good and necessary. (ref. post #133)

 

[SimpleDon]

Let me just put this out there.

My problem with libertarianism is that is that it appears to need for everyone involved to be nice. If everyone was nice, practically any form of economic, political, and/or social arrangement would work and work beautifully.

I remember my kid asking me, as I had asked my mom, and I am sure she had asked her mom, and on back through the generations, why couldn't everybody just be nice to each other and share with each other and not hit each other? Then no one would get in trouble and there would be no poor people and everyone would be happy.

For Libertarianism to work, it appears to me to demand such a world. And that world does not exist. Nor will such a world just arise if we act as if it is already here and begin practicing libertarian policies.

You misunderstand both libertarianism and reality.

I don't think that I misunderstand either. Jason has told us that we only have to understand the non-aggression principle to understand libertarianism and we only have to apply that principle to any situation to understand what a libertarian policy would be. I wasn't able to do that but with just a few more libertarian principles, self-ownership, the free market and child guardianship rules I am able to correctly anticipate libertarian policies for a range of situations.

Children are allowed to be bought and sold and forced to work but it is not that ugly thing with the 's' word. Adults can sell themselves into indentured servitude as long as it isn't called that or the ‘s' word. Adults would be able to sell a kidney or a lobe of their liver. People would have the freedom to cross borders to countries that offer a better life.

What I disagree with is that libertarians have any understanding of reality. No one argues with the libertarian principles. They are wonderful goals for us to aspire to and I think that they are pretty close to what we have been trying to do in the US for a couple of centuries now. But we have been applying these principles in the real world, facing it head on and adapting to reality. Libertarians have been just talking about theories the whole time.

What I am completely convinced of now is that the main appeal of libertarianism is its unworldly simplicity and its complete failure to deal with the complex, extremely messy and ambiguous, real world. Libertarianism creates a safe, easy to understand fantasy world that its followers can retreat to when ever questions come up. The solution for social conflicts is more individual freedom. The solution for any economic problem is the free market.

The rest later.​

 

[skepticalbip]

You misunderstand both libertarianism and reality.

I don't think that I misunderstand either. Jason has told us that we only have to understand the non-aggression principle to understand libertarianism and we only have to apply that principle to any situation to understand what a libertarian policy would be. I wasn't able to do that but with just a few more libertarian principles, self-ownership, the free market and child guardianship rules I am able to correctly anticipate libertarian policies for a range of situations.

Children are allowed to be bought and sold and forced to work but it is not that ugly thing with the 's' word. Adults can sell themselves into indentured servitude as long as it isn't called that or the ‘s' word. Adults would be able to sell a kidney or a lobe of their liver. People would have the freedom to cross borders to countries that offer a better life.

What I disagree with is that libertarians have any understanding of reality. No one argues with the libertarian principles. They are wonderful goals for us to aspire to and I think that they are pretty close to what we have been trying to do in the US for a couple of centuries now. But we have been applying these principles in the real world, facing it head on and adapting to reality. Libertarians have been just talking about theories the whole time.

What I am completely convinced of now is that the main appeal of libertarianism is its unworldly simplicity and its complete failure to deal with the complex, extremely messy and ambiguous, real world. Libertarianism creates a safe, easy to understand fantasy world that its followers can retreat to when ever questions come up. The solution for social conflicts is more individual freedom. The solution for any economic problem is the free market.

The rest later.​

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that I misunderstand either. Jason has told us that we only have to understand the non-aggression principle to understand libertarianism and we only have to apply that principle to any situation to understand what a libertarian policy would be. I wasn't able to do that but with just a few more libertarian principles, self-ownership, the free market and child guardianship rules I am able to correctly anticipate libertarian policies for a range of situations.

Children are allowed to be bought and sold and forced to work but it is not that ugly thing with the 's' word. Adults can sell themselves into indentured servitude as long as it isn't called that or the ‘s' word. Adults would be able to sell a kidney or a lobe of their liver. People would have the freedom to cross borders to countries that offer a better life.

What I disagree with is that libertarians have any understanding of reality. No one argues with the libertarian principles. They are wonderful goals for us to aspire to and I think that they are pretty close to what we have been trying to do in the US for a couple of centuries now. But we have been applying these principles in the real world, facing it head on and adapting to reality. Libertarians have been just talking about theories the whole time.

What I am completely convinced of now is that the main appeal of libertarianism is its unworldly simplicity and its complete failure to deal with the complex, extremely messy and ambiguous, real world. Libertarianism creates a safe, easy to understand fantasy world that its followers can retreat to when ever questions come up. The solution for social conflicts is more individual freedom. The solution for any economic problem is the free market.

The rest later.​

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

So Libertarianism is undefinable? Well, that certainly explains the confusion.