Principled Libertarianism
Very recently, within the past few months, I became what I call a principled libertarian. Rothbard would probably describe it as Anarcho-capitalism. I discovered a few ideas and principals which I had prior not clearly recognized. My beliefs have mostly not changed, but I’ve dug down to the root of them and unearthed the foundation they’re built upon. It gives me a much clearer understanding of why I believe the things I do, and in circumstances where I’m presented with new problems, a starting point.
Is it common for people to have this luxury I now possess? My inclination is to say the average person does not, but I cannot be certain this is not for the selfish reason of wanting to believe I’m not stupid for taking 26 years to finally stumble upon the truth.
So what is this truth, the idea behind my so-called principled libertarianism and Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism? Put simply, property rights. At the center of any philosophical discussion I’m engaged in, I side with the position which advocates absolute property rights. From intellectual property to capital punishment to animal rights to abortion, all of my positions can be traced back to my belief in a property owner’s absolute right to control his own scarce resources and defend them from aggression or invasion.
I could give in-depth analysis on how each of the above subjects can be traced back to property rights, but for now here’s the basic gist of each:
Intellectual Property: Ideas are a non-scarce resource, and thus not subject to property rights. Attempting to treat them otherwise forces upon others restrictions on how to use their own property; effectively ceding exclusive control of their property to another without consent.
Capital Punishment: A crime is an act of aggression against another person’s property: be it damages, trespass, or theft. The victim is the only one with a reasonable claim to punish the aggressor, because it is his property rights which have been violated (through the concept of self-ownership, each individual’s body is their property, and they therefore retain the exclusive right to its control and defense). In the case of murder, the victim has been removed from the debate: in this case, either an heir or the victim’s will would decide to what extent to punish the aggressor.
Animals’ Rights: This is the one way in which rights are not universal; they do not extend beyond the human species. The reason is simple: animals do not respect any property rights whatsoever, and operate based on their own necessities exclusively. They are not rational or even (in most cases) self-aware. We will recognize the property rights of animals whenever they petition for them.
Abortion: This one is sort of complex, but to be as brief as possible: where life begins is irrelevant. If a fetus is alive and unwanted (regardless of at what point in the pregnancy it becomes unwanted), it immediately becomes a trespasser and invader to the woman’s property, and given that she has the exclusive right to control her body then she may expel it. Note that I make no judgment on the personal morality of this scenario, only on the larger immorality denying the woman’s natural right would be.
I’ll probably post about each of these four things and go into more detail on each another time.
Posted by wobbles on Wednesday, July 21, 2010