Libertarian Party's Non-agression principle

[Atlas]

Essentially, the fact that all Libertarians agree to the non-aggression principle when they sign for LP membership must mean that we're all Anarcho-Capitalists. We can't in good conscience ever authorize the use of force against any person for anything. Anytime we want to control others, we must realize that the flip-side allows them to regulate us. I'm not so high and mighty to presume what is good for others. So, any Lp-er can never promote the war in Iraq. We have them however. It doesn't make sense. Who signs a statement saying that they won't use force when dealing with others and actually breaks their word.

[PowerPenguin]

Rebel, you can't speak for anyone but yourself w/out being a paternalist! 8-) That said, we don't know what the authors of this statement actually meant. For me (and I'm guessing you), this does ultimately mean that we don't support any of this crap, but for other straight-line libertarians, this simply means that you don't support government for any reason outside protecting rights/defending the nation/etc. I think our position is better, but the main-line interpretation is 99% the same, and let's go with that for the time being.

[tracysaboe]

The problem with that thinking though is that in order for government to do that, is must.

A) Steal from the very people it's supposedly protecting the property of to finance that defence, and . . .

B) initiate violence against another company if a different company tried competing and offering the same services the government does.

So, even the minarchist position, supports the initiation of force.

Now, if a person thinks that in order for society to function properly you need some initiation of violence and coersion -- then, fine. Say that. Be honest about it.

But such a person shouldn't go around bandying this idea that he subscribes to the Zero Agression Principle. That person subscribes to the zero agression principle except when the state is forcebly extracting money for the perpose of using it to defend it's subject's property and doing violence against competitors.

You see, when you take all the mythos away from it. What the minarchist supports is a protection racket. A limited protection racket.

Now if you are such a person, then fine. I'll still take you. You're probably still a very radical minarchist libertarian who would help to pare down 99% of the current government we have. All I ask, is that when we get down to that point and government is only 1% of the size it currently is, please stay out of our way while we work to destroy the last vestige of legitimized crime from our society.

Tracy

[Fluff and Stuff]

Maybe this helps explain why the vast majority of libertarians are not current LP members, http://www.reformthelp.org/party/pledge/bait.php

Maybe we could get the NHLP to end the pledge?

[YeahItsMeJP]

It's not about numbers. It's about principle and reaching out to those and sharing with them why such a principle is important. I didn't sign the pledge when I first wanted to become a member of the party because I believed as the Reform the LP group did about it. But gave $25 regardless. As I became better educated on the subject of the ZAP, I decided I wanted to sign it - especially when I realized it scanned with the religious principles of my Sunday School days.

[Dreepa]

People might argue (not saying I agree) that attacking IRAQ was self defense.

[AlanM]

People might argue (not saying I agree) that attacking IRAQ was self defense.

Not convincingly. Iraq posed no threat to the US.

[Atlas]

People might argue (not saying I agree) that attacking IRAQ was self defense.

Not convincingly. Iraq posed no threat to the US.

We'd know for sure if we had an honest debate about 9-11.

[AlanM]

People might argue (not saying I agree) that attacking IRAQ was self defense.

Not convincingly. Iraq posed no threat to the US.

We'd know for sure if we had an honest debate about 9-11.

We invaded Iraq because they switched from dollar payments for oil, to euro payments. Iran is about to start the same thing, and the drums of war are beating. Open your eyes people. It is all about the dollar.

[aries]

I'm not for nonagression.

I am against big government (which leads to big government agression).

I'm all for small government. I can only ideally be an anarchocapitalist.

[KBCraig]

The problem with that thinking though is that in order for government to do that, is must.

A) Steal from the very people it's supposedly protecting the property of to finance that defence, and . . .

Not if it's financed by subscription and donation.

B) initiate violence against another company if a different company tried competing and offering the same services the government does.

Only if it's a non-minimalist government that outlaws competition for government service. Minarchy has competition for those services.

So, even the minarchist position, supports the initiation of force.

Not necessarily. 

Now if you are such a person, then fine. I'll still take you. You're probably still a very radical minarchist libertarian who would help to pare down 99% of the current government we have. All I ask, is that when we get down to that point and government is only 1% of the size it currently is, please stay out of our way while we work to destroy the last vestige of legitimized crime from our society.

Deal! 

[Lloyd Danforth]

People might argue (not saying I agree) that attacking IRAQ was self defense.

Not convincingly. Iraq posed no threat to the US.

I don't see how anyone could make an argument for invading Iraq.  I can understand, to some extent, when I put my government hat on, bombing terrorist training camps in Afganistan.  Invading Saudi Arabia would have been wrong, but, makes more sense.

[tracysaboe]

The problem with that thinking though is that in order for government to do that, is must.

A) Steal from the very people it's supposedly protecting the property of to finance that defence, and . . .

Not if it's financed by subscription and donation.

Technically it's not taxing and stealing then, then fine.

B) initiate violence against another company if a different company tried competing and offering the same services the government does.

Only if it's a non-minimalist government that outlaws competition for government service. Minarchy has competition for those services.

If it doesn't initiate agression against competitors to maintain a coersive monopoly on judicial, police, restitution, and legislative services, then technically it's not a government.

So, even the minarchist position, supports the initiation of force.

Not necessarily. 
[/quote]

It's true that a government doesn't NEED a tax to be a government. But if it's not initiating force to maintain a coersive monopoly in protection, arbitration, etc. it's technically not a government. Or at least not a State. Maintaining a monopoly on force is like the definition of THE STATE.

[citizen_142002]

I'll be honest, I agree with Locke about government. In an ideal world total anarchocapitalism would function best, but this isn't an ideal world. I know some of you will argue that the market would address the defence of life, liberty, and property, but I just think that in reality some bully will come around and take over without a minimal state to address these issues. Call it a necessary evil.

I just think it's a waste of effort to argue about what should be done after we eliminate 80-90% of government programs.

[tracysaboe]

So we should support and legitimize the idea of a bully so a bully doesn't take over?

Seriously, how is a bully taking over different from what we have now?

At least bully's aren't viewed at legitimate by the populous and hence they'll have less power then a legalized one.

Tracy