The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism

Self-ownership

7 (19.4%)

Choice

2 (5.6%)

Both, you can't have one without the other

20 (55.6%)

Both, they have to be equally honored

5 (13.9%)

Neither

2 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 11

[gandhi2]

Just to put an end to BT's ramblings, I thought I'd post this poll, to see where the libertarian base really stands.

[BenTucker]

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, Ch. 5

"The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. 10, Pt 2

"The property rights that each citizen has in himself are the foundation of a free society." -- James Bovard, Freedom In Chains, p. 86

"Libertarianism begins with the right of self ownership." -- David Bergland, Libertarianism In One Lesson, p. 35

"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2

"The right of life and liberty--that is to say, the right of the man to himself--is not really one right and the right of property another right.  They are two aspects of the same perception--the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself.  The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 210

[gandhi2]

So far, you are losing, BT.

Just as the anarchy has evolved to its current forms, one being mutualism, libertarianism has evolved such that most who would call themselves libertarian feel that the right to choice and to self-ownership are unextractible.  Therefore your definition as it stands is wrong.  Let's keep the poll going though, so that all can see you are blowing wind out your ass.

What will you do next, once virtually everybody here agrees with me?

Quoting dead people was not the purpose of the poll, BT.

Cyro's right.  The purpose was to take a snapshot of what libertarianism TODAY means.  The only ones of those people with more than an ounce of credibility to comment on modern libertarianism is Bergland and perhaps Rand, mainly because they've lived in the modern world.

[BenTucker]

The only ones of those people with more than an ounce of credibility to comment on modern libertarianism is Bergland

ever heard of James Bovard?

[ladyattis]

The only ones of those people with more than an ounce of credibility to comment on modern libertarianism is Bergland

ever heard of James Bovard?

Ever heard that quotes without a purpose are pointless?

-- Bridget

[gandhi2]

ever heard of James Bovard?

Whomever he is, it's irrelevant.  The word is defined by our perception.  What gives us authority to call a thing "cat" and have it be so?  Consensus.  So that when we say the word "cat" some other peoples can recognize the tangible thing of which we are speaking.  If you look at a thing and call it "dog" when you really mean a cat, others will look at you in the proper light, as they would a madman.  Clearly it is "cat" and you are wrong.  Even if the rest of that society called it "neko" and you called it "cat," they would still be right, and if you wanted to communicate with them, you would have to call it "neko."

So shut up, sit back, and watch the poll results confirm my definition of libertarianism above yours.

[BenTucker]

Just to put an end to BT's ramblings, I thought I'd post this poll, to see where the libertarian base really stands.

choice is a consequence of self-ownership - as Rand said everything is a corrolary or consequence of self-ownership)...

self-ownership is a natural fact, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will).

if someone else controls your body or can compel you to labor then you would have no choice via free will.

self-ownership has to come before choice...

[aquabanianskakid]

I think Libertarianism has been defined well by this shiny little poll.

[Bill Brasky]

Yay, I got it right. 

I guess my head is good for something other than pounding on the desk. 

Not that I expect to stop that activity any time soon. 

[gandhi2]

self-ownership is a natural fact, since a man in his very nature controls his own mind and body (natural disposition), that is, he is a natural self-owner of his own will and person (having a free will).

Glorious! Mwahahaha!

You admit to my initial statement about rights: That they are inherent characteristics(natural fact) of sentience rather than social constructs!  You also conceded right there that self-ownership is a statement of Jungian/Freudian self, rather than body, which you continually assert when it suits your needs.  If it is in fact true that self in the case of self-ownership refers to the segment of sentience which is you, then choice is ALWAYS present, even under threat of death you are the final arbitrater.  Libertarianism seeks to minimize the amount of dispossession, so that man can truly say he is the causer of an act and thus owner of his self,  and was not coerced at point of sword to do it.

if someone else controls your body or can compel you to labor then you would have no choice via free will.

So, now that we are in agreement on the above, what came first the chicken or the egg?  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, I choose...THEREFORE...I am!  You cannot separate the two!  But in this definition of sentience and statement of self, you are DEFINING that choice comes first.

Oh, this is too much fun, Ben.  If I could waste the time, I would spend all my days lambasting you with logic.  It is just too bad that you can't see me in person, and my prevalent shit-eating grin of victory!!  Mwahahaa!!

[aquabanianskakid]

I like pounding things as well...

[BenTucker]

You cannot separate the two

just like to exist is one in the same as occupying land.

[Taors]

I like pounding things as well...

Such as.............?

[gandhi2]

just like to exist is one in the same as occupying land.

Come on, Polly...that's not the whole phrase...*whistle*...come on, birdie.  Say it ALL.

To exist as BT's definition of ideal natural human existence(because we've defined that a rock, tree, pole, or river can exist), claiming Earthling status, as a citizen of the Earth in agrarian harmony, yet contrary to primal natural existence, is to live off the land, not enjoying the benefits of technology which would elevate make him somehow less human or even carving out your own niche from the rock, is synchronous to occupying land.  The modern man is master of his environment, subject to limitations only on his tools and technology...the primal man, subject to nature's fury and only the resources that nature provides.  Your ideal seems to be somewhere about when man started to plow the fields, way back thousands of years ago, in Sumeria or Babylon or somewhere.  It's not a very PROSPEROUS existence, Ben, by modern standards...by today's ethos, man must control more to be more powerful and to continue his life longer.

I enjoy this far too much.  It's almost sadomasochist...I can feel your pain of frustration, and revel in it, tightening the screw MORE because of the frustration I have suffered from your incessant babbling in the past.

[BenTucker]

Your ideal seems to be somewhere about when man started to plow the fields, way back thousands of years ago, in Sumeria or Babylon or somewhere.  It's not a very PROSPEROUS existence, Ben, by modern standards...by today's ethos, man must control more to be more powerful and to continue his life longer.

none of which is incompatible with my views as it all includes laboring on land as absolute property...