There are quite a few people out there today who identify themselves as libertarians when asked where they stand along the political spectrum. Libertarianism is of course a political philosophy, but how is it that there are so many different flavors, designations, sub groups, and philosophies within this larger political credo that is already well defined by logical, objective, and irrefutable facts of the natural order. To stray away from the central and core principles of libertarianism is to be something other than a libertarian. Some groups have hijacked and reinterpreted libertarianism to mean something else as a means to justify some ideologically dogmatic political ends and others just do not take libertarian tenets to their valid conclusions. This will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs but first we must define what libertarianism is and then use that definition to explain why there is only one way to be a real libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is built on the non aggression principle (NAP). This means that no one can initiate or threaten force against an individual or his private property. This does not include self defense. The use of justifiable and reasonable force to defend your body from physical harm or your private property from theft or destruction, is an objective natural law which preserves the inalienability of one’s own self ownership in their body and their rightfully acquired property through human action. To deny a person the right to defend themselves against unprovoked aggressors, would deny them their right to live and to pursue their goals. The true libertarian adheres to pursuing his own interests as long as he does not violate the NAP. Libertarian law allows for all behaviors even if they are self destructive or morally inferior with the understanding that the initiation of force is absent. Libertarianism is not a fully developed moral philosophy, however, murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, broken private property contracts amongst other things, are all violations under this axiomatic philosophy. So who are genuine libertarians and who are the frauds?
The United States is home to contemporary libertarians who usually align themselves with the ideas of limited government and minarchism. It is a blatant oxymoronic statement to say that you are a constitutional libertarian. The State uses force to collect taxes and has a monopoly on this power, as well as, ultimate decision making power over a geographic area, and legislative power. This all violates the NAP and is why The State is illegitimate. Anyone who supports an entity that uses force to grow at the expense of sovereign individuals is not a libertarian. Even if the powers are enumerated in a constitution, it still does not justify the use of coercion and violence to fund the military, public courts, or local police services. Government can never remain minimal and taxation is theft with the very real threat of violence always present, which can result in murder, if these tyrannical types of laws are ignored by individuals. This is not libertarian. People like Glenn Beck who support the military industrial complex, and worship tyrants like Abraham Lincoln, along with the promotion of religion with tax dollars are not libertarians. John Stossel is fine with a fair tax and he does not think gigantic bureaucracies like the NSA spying on private individuals while invading private property is that big of a deal. This is not very libertarian. Milton Friedman was a monetarist and supported The Federal Reserve. Although I strongly support Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, she is unquestionably wrong when it comes to politics. Rand was a limited government apologist, in other words a statist, and never considered herself a libertarian. Groups like Freedomworks and The Libertarian Party all support the political process that asks you to vote for one of two masters and they want a constitution to be enforced that allows for war, taxation, and unrestrained powers that are perpetuated by the incessant passing of harmful laws, dictatorial executive orders, and approval by the unchecked judicial activists known as The Supreme Court. The power mad government gets to decide whether its laws are constitutional. The absurdity in this system is just mind numbing. None of this has anything to do with libertarianism.
Now let’s move on to the left libertarians. These libertarians are also known as anarcho communists, anarcho syndicalists, and libertarian socialists. They abhor private property, capitalism, and individualism while lauding collectivism, egalitarianism, social justice, and social movements (feminist movement, labor movement, occupy). There are some agreements among pure libertarian anarchists (anarcho capitalists) and anarcho communists or left libertarians. They are both anti war and are also highly critical of The State and the government media complex. Besides that, there is nothing in common and the term libertarian socialist is a major contradiction. To disregard private property rights is a violation of the natural order. When someone identifies as a socialist they are advocating for the redistribution of private property, whether it’s wealth, land, or earned income. How is this in line with freedom and individuals pursuing their objectives and values. Left libertarians are also in favor of hedonistic, alternative, and abnormal lifestyles being a major factor in this irrational philosophy. Now as long as these lifestyles are done voluntarily and in private communities, that is fine, however, culturally conservative private property anarchists and free market anarchists have a right to exclude unwanted behavior from their private property. The NAP clearly says you can be a filthy prostitute, an unproductive leech and a vagrant, a religious fanatic, a spurious collectivist, a bug saving hippie environmentalist, a feminist, a drug addled low life, or a flamboyant homosexual that chooses non traditional values, but that also gives other private property owners the right to exclude these people from their property. In fact, the most successful and peaceful libertarian anarchist communities will be the ones that embrace objective morality and have conservative ethical standards for entry. The ones that disregard private property and embrace deviant and abnormal behavior will be impoverished, laden with criminals, and will ultimately self destruct and will collectively fail as a society. This is just an irrefutable unbreakable argument. Left libertarians also have no clue when it comes to economics. They are more concerned with making every single person equally poor, equally uneducated, and equally hopeless. Why should workers in a factory own the factory and not the entrepreneur or factory worker? Anarcho syndicalists think that the workers have ownership rights but they are not the ones that raised the capital and took the risk to start a business that employs people who have high time preferences and brings goods and services to the market that people demand. If we take away private property from the economic means of production there will be widespread shortages. There has to be private ownership of the factors of production so resources can be allocated in the most efficient and cost effective manner. This is what allows for accurate pricing and prevents shortages or waste. Either is inevitable without private property laws, it just depends on the circumstances.
Who gets to decide how this property is allocated? If property is owned by everyone, then does each person have to ask every single other person before he homesteads unused land? This is unfathomable. Left libertarians advocate for democracy without The State. This is just of course mob rule and leaders always emerge. Someone or a group of people have to decide how property and resources will be distributed or redistributed and that just brings us back to the illegitimate State. The major contributors to left libertarianism are Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Rudolf Rocker. There are more I left out but that gives you an idea. The more popular and mainstream left libertarians would include people like Bill Maher (who is actually a progressive liberal) and Russell Brand. They both have a number of misguided political opinions that are mainly based on emotion as opposed to reason. I do find some of Chomsky’s ideas and writings enlightening but it’s limited to anti war sentiments and his stance on the Israel-Palestine Conflict. These people are mostly pseudo academics and the ideas they espouse are antithetical to libertarianism. Anyone who vilifies private property and voluntary exchange but cherishes a collectivist society of robots living in misery for the sake of social equality is not a libertarian. Corporatism is a tyrannical system that is very oppressive, however, it can only exist symbiotically with The State. Monopolies and totalitarian corporate structures can not exist in a pure capitalist and stateless society. Finally, employment is voluntary. The notion, propagated by left libertarians, that wage earners are slaves is just ridiculous. There is no such thing as involuntary unemployment in an anarcho capitalist society.
So then who are the real, pure, and genuine libertarians? The legitimate intellectuals and freedom lovers in a choppy sea of imposters. The real libertarians are the ones who unwaveringly stand by NAP and hold private property rights to be non negotiable. They support individualism, human action, freedom of association, freedom to discriminate, voluntary exchange, pure free markets, self governance, capitalism, and the natural order. They are more commonly referred to as anarcho capitalists, free market anarchists, private property anarchists, libertarian anarchists, and advocates for a private law society. The major contributors to this philosophy include Murray Rothbard, Hans- Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, David Friedman, Stephan Kinsella, Ludwig Von Mises (Austrian Economist), and many others. So there is only one type of libertarian. The sooner people realize that the better off we will be as a free people.