Libertarianism means respect

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 31, 2018)

I am not libertarian because I expect to get anything from it.  Well, that's not completely true.  I should say I am not libertarian because I expect to get anything from you because of it. I don't even necessarily expect civilized behavior from others.

Respect for life, liberty, and property-- without excuses-- is the hallmark of both libertarianism and civilization. I expect civilized behavior only from other libertarians, and not even all of them manage to deliver. After all, they are still only human.

I am libertarian because I don't have any desire to own you, nor do I wish to be owned. I am libertarian because I recognize your life and the products of your life-- your property-- are yours, alone, to use as you wish, as long as you don't violate anyone else. I am libertarian because I expect to be treated as I treat you, while exercising the right to defend myself and others against any who refuse to cooperate.

I don't want something for nothing. I'm not libertarian because I hate roads, parks, libraries, and food safety. I am libertarian because I know my appreciation for something doesn't justify forcing you to pay for it against your will. I am perfectly willing to pay for what I use-- however, I want to be able to choose the provider I buy the service from, and I want to be able to opt out of things I have no use for, such as police. Monopolies never serve customers' needs adequately, and never survive long without government favoritism. I prefer free enterprise, liberated markets, competition, and options over mandatory "one-size-fits-all" monopolies.

One precious thing I get from being libertarian is freedom from the stress of trying to control your life. You do your thing, and as long as you don't try to stop me from doing mine, and you violate no one, we'll have no problem.

Unfortunately, the non-libertarian crowd seems to find this civilized compromise unacceptable. They can't abide something so mature and respectful; based on mutual consent.

It doesn't change how I'll live, though. I won't call for anyone's life, liberty, and property to be violated simply because they can't respect mine. I support self-defense for anyone being violated for any reason, and I hope the bullies learn about actions and consequences before it's too late.  Someone has to take the first step toward maturity when dealing with others. Let's take the step together.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit

The right to keep and bear nukes

Just because I am against any sort of violation of the right to own and to carry weapons, it doesn't mean I think everyone should have nukes. I'm opposed to anyone owning nuclear weapons-- especially governments. (But I'm also opposed to government employees possessing any sort of weapon while on the "job". They have proven they can never be trusted.)

I can't figure out how anyone could ever use nukes (on Earth, anyway) strictly defensively without damaging the life, liberty, or property of innocents ("collateral damage"). If you can't do something without archating, then it can't be a right.

Yes, I realize possessing nuclear weapons isn't the same as using them. Is not possessing nukes a credible threat to use them, which necessarily means archating? If not, then I'm wrong.

Being against the possession of nuclear weapons doesn't mean I want governments banning them from private hands. That's worse than letting the fox guard the henhouse. Much worse. Government doesn't have the right, nor does it have the imaginary quality called "authority", to forbid others from owning anything, including nuclear weapons.

Added 3-29-2018:
Here's a further explanation by someone who may know better than me why the "deterrence" of nukes is BS-- link

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Follow me on Steemit and Medium