Libertarianism FAQ @libertarianism 0

by sidstuff and contributors, CC BY 4.0 (Why?)

Many defenses of libertarianism rely too much on notions of freedom and appeal only to those already libertarians. This FAQ aims to provide an introduction to and watertight defense of libertarianism acceptable to nearly everybody.

It is meant to be read from beginning to end for its arguments to be convincing. Answer people's questions by pasting excerpts from it, then strongly recomend reading it in full. The past should not hold back the future; section numbers, names, and contents may be changed.

Contribute by opening issues and pull requests at github.com/sidstuff/libertarianism.

Visit ourbigbook.com/libertarianism for a better reading experience.

Looking for studies, literature, quotes, and statistics to cite, well-informed libertarians, please contribute.

Memes are welcome as well, but only if it conveys without insults or hyperbole, an airtight argument. Humor should not come at the cost of the message and its accuracy.

The libertarian opposition to government-funded welfare is based on of course, ideals of voluntaryism, but also on the efficiency of private entities. Simply giving the poor money is not the best way to end poverty. With private charities, the ones that can actually cause change in a neighbourhood will get donations, and inefficient ones won't. This will likely involve putting conditions on the money given, eg., that the able-bodied and able-minded must participate in education/employment. There's also the task of making such initiatives as efficient as possible.

If a pseudo-libertarian government were to forcibly collect money for welfare, it would be best to decouple the voting for the NAP-enforcing and welfare-providing branches, but there would still be a big problem.

If contributing to welfare was compulsory and the welfare provider was voted upon democratically, the votes of wealthy charity givers that want to see change would be drowned out by the votes of the poor that would prefer to receive money with no strings attached, and the votes of the upper and middle classes that want their contributions reduced. And if the voting isn't democratic, the system will be overthrown by the people. But reducing compulsary welfare via the votes of the upper and middle class is currently possible if all of them could be convinced that it is misplaced kindness.

The main concern people have regarding abolishing welfare is whether enough money will be donated to cover all poor people. The rich who can afford to donate large amounts already do, be it out of kindness or to acquire goodwill, and people would certainly donate a lot more if they didn't already have to pay half their money in income, property, value-added, excise, and numerous other taxes, for the "betterment of society". Libertarians believe that this, combined with the fact that the best performing charities will be the ones donated to, mean that poverty will be alleviated with less money needing to be spent.

We can't definitively prove this yet, so why not first test things out by slowly reducing the scope of government welfare? It must not all be cut suddenly, since time will be needed for the culture surrounding welfare to shift as people pay less in taxes, and for private charities to strengthen and become effective.

The state takes a portion of your money and decides for you how it should be spent, imposes innumerable restrictions on you, and destroys your life if you disobey. On top of that, not only is the public sector less efficient than the private sector due to the lack of competition, private entities are burdened by unnecessary regulations. The justification given for this is that it improves the average well-being in several ways. But what if all the human effort spent on government is actually harmful? What if we're better off using it elsewhere if we want a more fair and prosperous society? That is what this FAQ aims to convice you of.

While corporate-owned roads are certainly possible, they would require continuous tracking of vehicles to charge them, and the tracking infrastructure would be a privacy nightmare and great additional cost. For the true solution, consider that all the currently needed roads have already been built by the government; the only required cost is to maintain them, and very rarely, build new ones. Upon transitioning to libertarianism, government roads will be transferred to the people, and maintenance costs will be paid for willingly by those whose lands are accessed via those roads.

Since a government already went ahead and used our taxes to build roads, we'll have to decide upon transition exactly how shares of the entities controlling different roads should be distributed among the people, and locals will have to plan collective payment for maintaining the roads. But it is doubtless that people will not let the roads leading to their land fall into disrepair, as it would discourage visitors to their businesses and homes.

Some sewage systems, power generation, forests, beaches, etc., may currently be government owned. They can also be redistributed similar to roads and the water supply. Any profits gained by these will be distributed proportional to the shares owned.

First let's discuss the argument against abortion. Most people would save the life of an infant over that of an animal, even if the animal is more intelligent. The only unbiased reason to do this is that given nutrients, the baby will develop into a more intelligent lifeform in the future. Thus wanting to save a "clump of cells" isn't as irrational as it may seem.

But our hypothetical above assumes that both the baby and the animal want to live. By not killing themselves, all conscious creatures have implicitly expressed their desire to continue living, and most people agree that that is to be respected, at least for humans. Which is why killing a person painlessly while they're unconscious is still considered wrong. But this desire does not apply to fetuses before the third trimester, which have never been conscious. This is the moral argument for abortion. There is also the obvious utilitarian argument for it.

It is important to note that nowhere is discrimination against every category prohibited. Nearly all businesses would turn down certain types of customers. Only discrimination against certain protected characteristics, usually (but not always) immutable ones, irrelevant to the business, is prohibited.

In a democracy, the passing of a law prohibiting discrimination against a certain group requires the majority to be against said discrimination. This means that this group won't be discriminated against by most people anyway. Those that do will suffer losses from missed customers. People strongly opposed to the discrimination may even counter-discriminate, boycotting those that do.

In such a situation, it doesn't seem all that necessary to legally prohibit discrimination, especially to libertarians, who believe that no one can be forced to serve another for whatever reason, even "social justice".

Defamation is not fraud because no one has a legal agreement with the public by default to provide true facts only. If defamation was legal, there would be so many false accusations and fake evidence of the same, that most people would actually learn to think critically and not believe something until it has truly been verified. If a majority of people gain this skill, their critical thinking would be the predominant opinion, and anybody blindly believing things would have to be willfully blind.

For a stable society, people need assurance that they will not be spied on, so we must slightly extend the concept of private property to include personal space. Otherwise, someone repeatedly coming within a centimeter of you and using the "I'm not touching you" kindergarten taunt would be totally allowed. The extent of this personal space is context dependent, and could be the toilet, changing room, bedroom, underneath a skirt, etc. If someone's personal space is in overlap with your private property, you cannot immediately violate said space, but can ask them to leave, and take measures to remove them only if they don't comply within a reasonable timeframe.

All claimed land will be privately owned; patronize places (neighbourhoods, restaurants, streets, beaches, parks, etc.) which implement the rules that you want. Such places also have an incentive to enforce said rules to not just attract but keep their target customers.

A third trimester baby can survive outside the womb with medical help nowadays, so aborting it could be considered wrong for that reason, but assume a time period or situation where this isn't the case. The bodily autonomy argument would mean that a (hypothetical) 9th month abortion is okay in the above situation.

This involves killing an intelligent human, and as mentioned before, almost no one would morally agree with this, except in situations where the mother’s life is at risk. And an argument which leads to a disagreeable conclusion, is itself disagreeable. So this argument for abortion isn't very good, but that doesn't mean other arguments for it aren't.

Banning data/information and its use, literal 0s and 1s, is not just a violation of the free market, but of liberty itself. It is nothing short of tyranny. Keep in mind that by the law of supply and demand, data once created has no monetary value, since it can be duplicated infinitely. Any such value is thus something artificially maintained by the state using force to restrict its duplication. It lets companies charge whatever price they want for data and products built using said data, without competition for decades, which is terrible.

The justification given for such an infringement upon our freedoms is that it promotes creativity and innovation. We will discuss how in today's world, the idea that art and science would be significantly hindered without IP protections is untrue. The aforementioned monopoly caused by IP is a much worse effect than any benefits it may possibly have.

In a free market, the one who provides a good/service for the lowest price gets nearly all the customers. The one offering the highest for the same job gets nearly all the employees. No one wants to let another do this and dominate the industry, so they all compete against each other for customers and employees. Employees can also form unions to demand payment almost equal to the value they bring.

Libertarian morality is as follows: According to the principle of homesteading, each man owns his
own person, and he therefore owns the things which he produces – those parts of nature hitherto unowned and which,
when mixed with his labor, are transformed into productive
entities. The only moral ways for these entities to change ownership are voluntary trade and gift-giving.

Those who are productive with their property become
responsible for more and more, since they can afford to buy up additional property with their earnings. The overall productivity therefore, will rise.

This is an unsolvable problem because there's no way to extract large amounts of value from a person without cruelty, and even with cruelty, there's a limit to how much you can extract.

We have to distinguish between two types of creations. We'll discuss how the cost of coming up with both can be recouped without intellectual property and its awfulness.

Libertarianism simply refers to the notion of a minimal state. However, the term, especially in the US, generally refers to right-libertarianism, which also advocates for strong private property rights and a free market, and is also the meaning with which this FAQ uses it.

An important concept to libertarians is the non-agression principle (NAP), which forbids the non-consensual breach of contract (i.e., fraud), or of property (which includes the body). Aggression is, however, permitted to the extent necessary to defend against the above.

Right-libertarianism has several variants based on how minimal the state is:

This FAQ aims to defend a minarchist model. All uses of 'libertarian(ism)' henceforth will refer to the same.