libertarianism

396 readers

1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.
Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property.
In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.
If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed.
Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topic

We are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.

Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informational

In general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.

This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

PropaGandalf@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

-3

"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong (mastodon.social)

submitted 3 months ago by jlou@mastodon.social to c/libertarianism@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument" - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong

https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

“An inalienable right is a right that may not be ceded or transferred away even with the consent of the holders of the right. Any contract to alienate such a right would be an inherently invalid contract, and, vice-versa, a right such that any contract to alienate it was inherently invalid would thus be an inalienable right.”

@libertarianism

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] minnix@lemux.minnix.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is interesting, but it's all based on terms that have never been proven to exist in reality via logical analysis. If there were a solid objective theory of rights existing outside of legal structures, it would make for a much more satisfying read.

Also, Ellerman's arguments regarding slavery from a libertarian perspective never bring up what is credited within libertarianism as the main source of natural/human rights to begin with, individual sovereignty. If an individual is truly sovereign, then by definition anyone can emancipate themselves at any time regardless of any previously agreed upon contact. That's literally what sovereign means, supreme or ultimate, trumping everything else.

[–] PropaGandalf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like your reasonig pal :)

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

@PropaGandalf, what is your take on the article's argument?

I can't respond to @minnix's lemmy account, so I will put my response here to the second half of their post.

The traditional libertarian stories that are claimed to rule out self-sale contracts are addressed in:

https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philmore-1982.scan_.pdf

The theory of inalienable rights is what rules out these contract for all coherent classical liberals. Notably, the set of ruled out contracts includes the employer-employee contract

@libertarianism

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their deliberate and intentional joint actions.

@minnix, that is the definition of de facto responsibility. It is meaningful concept outside of a legal context. Ellerman's theory is a theory of how the legal system should operate. However, he does draw an equality between the tenet of imputation and the labor theory of property. I would recommend anyone interested to read his other work

@libertarianism

[–] minnix@lemux.minnix.dev 0 points 3 months ago

I don't see how this relates to my comment regarding individual sovereignty or the existence of natural rights as an extension.