I don’t imagine there is one answer, but if I am required to
choose one it would be Rothbard.
I can accept that Rothbard’s views on anarchy are not
acceptable to all libertarians, as many libertarians hold on to the idea of a minarchist
state. However, it seems to me that some
bare minimum requirement is necessary to be seen as a “real libertarian.”
First and foremost, if a government does anything more than
protect the personal property of those within its jurisdiction, it is no longer
a government but a well-funded and well-organized thief. If not for the absolute protection of private
property, why would men voluntarily form together? They certainly do not form together to have
their property extorted!
For those who advocate exceptions to this, no matter how
seemingly trivial, the label libertarian cannot be applicable. No helping the poor, no foreign aid, no
unemployment benefits, no price controls, no trade barriers, no funding basic
science and research, no public education, no central banking, no overseas
bases, no “liberating” other people, no funding of highways and roads, no
metropolitan water districts, no “natural monopolies” (only enforceable by the
state). None of it.
Second, the same rules must apply to all. A badge and a gun do not make one right in
situations where others without such adornments are wrong. The badge and gun cannot absolve murder or
theft. Any advocacy counter to this
would render the libertarian label as meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment