Libertarian Statism: A Contradictory Philosophy


Anarchy for Liberty

by Redblood Blackflag

Someone recently said “‘Libertarian’ has become an umbrella word for pro-market, pro-liberty individuals.”


The problem with this is a lot of people seem to be implying that “legislation” and “politicians” can be pro-market and/or pro-liberty in any meaningful sense; in any sense other than nonsense, self-contradictory propaganda.

If they were pro market, pro liberty, they wouldn’t be politicians.
If libertarianism is a blanket term for philosophies which uphold liberty as the highest “political end,” then there is only one “political philosophy” which fits this description: anarchism.
The state is by it’s very nature a violation of both the principle of a free market, and of individual liberty: the non-aggression principle. The State claims it is society’s sovereign; it claims it is the supreme ruler.

The State claims “I am the only one allowed to do (I assume one would mean defensive) force,” and backs…

View original post 194 more words


3 responses to “Libertarian Statism: A Contradictory Philosophy

  1. I read the anarchist’s post, and while it is interesting, it is flawed. First – I’m not a Libertarian, but I do share some of the ideas that Libertarians hold. The anarchist asserts that, “The State claims it is society’s sovereign; it claims it is the supreme ruler.” That is his premise, and that is why his argument is false.

    In a proper society the state serves the purpose of protecting the individual rights of the citizens, which by the way are ultimately the owner of the state, not the other way around. The state also, in a proper society, settles honest disputes over property rights and such by passing judgments grounded in objective law, i.e., a constitution.

    Sure, when he brings up bills and laws that say the government is not going to demand as much in taxes, he is correct that you can’t call that “pro-liberty.” The U.S. is not currently functioning as a proper rights respecting society. However, anarchy is not the answer, as the anarchist claims.

    In a proper society, which Objectivists like me advocate, the government isn’t in a position to make demands. The rights of one man or woman are not infringed by the physical force of another man or woman. When one chooses to enact physical force on another (other than in emergency situations of self defense) then that person has violated the rights of another thereby forfeiting some of his own rights – this is where the government, by will of the people, takes necessary action to protect the rights of those who were being infringed.

  2. *revision*
    “The rights of one man or woman are not infringed by the physical force of another man or woman.” – should read – “The rights of one man or woman are not *to be* infringed by the physical force of another man or woman.”

    • Jonathan, great point. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I think you’re right, and you pointed out a mistake that all anarcho-capitalists make: the state is not a “ruler” but a “servant” of the public. Yes, right now the state is more of a “ruler” than a server, but that’s obviously not what we want and advocate for. The government serves as an objective entity that protects individual rights- as you said- and this is the only way to truly live in a free society.
      But, you and I and the anarchist can all agree that the current system is flawed and nowhere near ideal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s