Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy
by Joseph Knight

What is the proper role of government in a free society?
To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by "government".

Government is the use of force.  To govern means to control.  The use of force
is implicit in the definition of control.  Otherwise, it would be "influence"
rather than control.  Even the good things that governments do involve the use
of force somewhere, somehow.  Some times government uses force directly to
control behavior.  Other times, government uses money taken by force to fund
activities which would otherwise not involve the use of force.

Understanding that government is the use of force, the question then becomes
"What is the proper use of force in a free society?".  To answer this question,
we first look at different types of force.

1. INITIAL FORCE
   In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion, there is no use of
   force until some one uses it first.  Initial force is aggression or
   coercion.

2. DEFENSIVE FORCE
   Defensive force is the use of force to defend your safety, rights,
   or property.  You have the right to defend yourself, and the right
   to authorize others, such as those in government, to use defensive
   force in your behalf.  Defensive force is survival.

3. RETALIATORY FORCE
   Retaliatory force is punishment of someone who has initiated force.
   If someone assaults you, you have the right to authorize government
   to punish those responsible in your behalf.  Retaliatory force is
   justice.

Some people have suggested a fourth category - preemptive force - but most
examples of preemptive force, upon analysis, can be placed in one of the other
three categories.

Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the INITIATION of force. Let
me say that again, Libertarians are those who oppose the initiation  of force.

Some libertarians are pacifists.
They decline the use of any force.
Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists.
All oppose the initiation of force.

Some libertarians are militant.
They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force.   Libertarianism
is broad enough to encompass militants.
The common factor is opposition to the INITIATION of force.

Opposition to the initiation of force (called the non-coercion,  non-aggression,
or "no initial force" principle) is the essence of  libertarian philosophy.

     ** Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force. **

A robber cannot be "free" to steal your property nor can the bully be "free" to
strike you.  The robber and the bully have initiated force and the condition of
freedom doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the initiation of force.

Consequently, a "right" cannot be something which must be had at the expense of
others.  You have the right to free speech, but not to compel others to provide
your forum.  You have the right to earn a living, but not to compel others to
provide your living.  You have the right to believe in whatever religion you
choose, but if your god requires the sacrifice of virgins, you must find a
virgin willing to be sacrificed without being coerced into it.

Libertarians apply the non-coercion principle to all human behavior. It doesn't
matter if the initiators of force are in or out of government. Government
doesn't confer some mystical right on some to violate the rights of others.  If
it is wrong for a person to commit a rape as an individual, it must be equally
wrong for a person to commit a rape as an agent of government.

If somebody takes your property without your permission, it is theft, robbery,
or extortion (an initiation of force).  It is theft regardless of whether the
loot is used to buy drugs or to feed the poor.  It is theft regardless of
whether there is 1 thief or 2 thieves or 200 million thieves.  It is theft
regardless of whether the gang calls itself the "Sons of Satan" or "The Internal
Revenue Service".

The proper role of government in a free society then, is to defend and/or
retaliate against those who initiate force.  Government in a free society should
not be an initiator of force.

Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and fraud,  are laws
against the initiation of force.  Enforcement of such laws is  the application
of defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is  appropriate for government in a
free society.

Other laws constitute an initiation of force.
Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals.
Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state.
Government should not initiate force to impose life styles or moral codes.
Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your own good".

In a free society, you have property rights.  You can use honestly  acquired
property in any way that does not constitute initiation of force or fraud,
trespass on the property of others, or violate agreements you have voluntarily
entered into.  You decide which charities to support,  and don't have to
sacrifice your property against your will for purposes  that others decide on
rather than you.

In a free society, you have personal rights.  You can live however you want so
long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property.  You
decide what risks to take, what to believe in, and how to entertain yourself.

Property rights and personal rights are really the same.  Personal rights are
based on property rights in the sense that you own your own life, body and mind,
and property rights are the rights of persons.

Ownership and the use of honestly acquired property is not, in and of itself, an
initiation of force and therefore does not violate the rights of others.

If someone owns an AK-47 and uses it to murder school children, it is the murder
that is the initiation of force, not the ownership of the AK-47.  Murder should
be prohibited and punished regardless of the weapon used.  Most people who own
AK-47s do not murder school children or anybody else.

If you owned or rented a sexually explicit video and committed a sexual  assault
after viewing it, it would be the sexual assault that is the  initiation of
force, not the viewing of the video.  Rape should be prohibited whether
"obscenity" is involved or not.  Most people who view sexually explicit films do
not commit sexual assaults.

If someone owns and uses drugs, and steals to buy more drugs, it is the theft
that is the initiation of force.  Theft should be prohibited regardless of what
the loot is spent on.  The use of drugs is not an initiation of force.

In the old days people some times had to answer to the church for their crimes.
Some thought they could lessen the gravity of their offenses by claiming
possession.  "Your Holiness, the devil made me do it.".  What we often hear
today is "Your Honor, the drugs made me do it." or "Your Honor, the pornography
made me do it." or "Your Honor, my unhappy  childhood made me do it.".

With freedom comes responsibility.  If you initiate force, you should be held
fully accountable.  No cop-outs, no devils, no shifting the blame to others or
to inanimate objects.  If you do not initiate force or fraud (a subtle form of
force), you should be left alone and force should not be initiated against you
by government or any body else.

It's that simple.

-- -- --
Originally prepared by Joseph Knight.
Typed in by John G. Otto who accepts responsibility for errors  of transcription
and style.
--