Please note that I use the term "libertarian" both for lack of another and because it is what others use. I realize that it has been greatly abused.
Kevin Carson says that "...hierarchies are repugnant to libertarian values...". Jim Davidson says "...that if you are a racist, you are not a libertarian, if you are a sexist, you are not a libertarian, if you are against equal freedom for gays, the transgendered, the polyamorous, you are not a libertarian, if you discriminate against people because of their choice of religion, you are not a libertarian, if you think people from other countries should be rejected because of their choices in clothing, culture, religion, or behavior, you are not a libertarian..." A while ago there was a troll who said that if you believed in a deity you could not be a libertarian. I know someone personally who holds that position. I am sure there are many other things (X) that someone, somewhere, considers anathema to their personal values and therefore has decided that those who believe (X) are not libertarian.
I view this as incorrect. I view libertarian values as very narrow. A libertarian is someone who does not violate the rights of others. Those rights are narrowly defined as Life, Liberty, justly acquired Property.
If someone decides not to serve us in their restaurant because I am Latin and my wife is Chinese, they have not violated our rights. If, because I am Latin, they will not come to my aid while I am being mugged, they have not violated my rights. If they write an op-ed piece for the local newspaper exhorting their neighbors not to sell us a house because we are a mixed-race couple they have not violated our rights.
Therefore it is possible for them to be libertarian. The only thing that our philosophy requires is a negative. It requires us not to violate the rights of others. It does not require us to approve of others, to protect others, or to in any way support others. It does not prohibit anyone from using non-coercive measures to prevent someone from moving into the neighborhood, for whatever reason.
Would someone who holds racist/sexist/anti-religious/etc views be the best representative for the philosophy? Probably not. If you wish to positively influence people, it is best not to exhibit negative behavior in general. Libertarians who are pursuing a political agenda should probably be very careful when they nominate some one to run for office and when they speak in public. But this does not mean that people who hold abhorrent views cannot be libertarians.
The danger is that once we expand beyond the narrow view we can effectively add anything. As we saw when Ron Paul was running for POTUS. Many libertarians found religion, and started calling all of us who were not supporting RP heretics, claiming that anyone who did not support him was not a "true libertarian". Note that none of us violated anyone's rights. We simply did not take the positive position that the "true believers" required. This was, and still is, wrong.
It is not like the narrow view does not leave plenty of room to argue. There is a whole body of legal theory and discussion that deals with detaining people (depriving them of Liberty) when a crime has been committed. Also depriving them of Life in self defense. What are the circumstances where killing someone is valid? In the area of Land ownership we have a broad range of views, all of which support Property Rights, but view "justly acquired" rather differently.
So, for me, libertarian values are very narrow. This is what makes them attractive. This is what makes it possible to base a society on them, because they do not demand people be super human, they do not demand universal love, they do not demand any positive action or belief, they only demand the non-violation of rights.
Parallels
I think your thought parallels mine in this instance.
Is this somehow different from the Non-Aggression Principle? (I don't see that it is, but maybe you do.)
Naturally, being the trouble maker that I so proudly proclaim myself to be, I can see where there may very well be a difference of opinion regarding the specific definitions on the "property" part of "justly acquired property," but that doesn't conflict with your statement at all.
But I think we should include "universal love" in there somewhere... ;-)
I've been ranting and fuming and arm-twisting elsewhere about something but not here, I think, so let me bring it up. I've been looking into the concept of Somali Customary Law or Xeer, and, conceptually, it really looks good to me. What I like about it most is probably the idea that it looks through the other end of the glasses in that it only deals with conflicts, it does not deal with proscriptions. If there is no conflict then there is no law, there are no courts, there is nothing but people going about their business. When there is conflict, a voluntary court arises to deal with the issue, a decision is reached and then it is up to the parties to voluntarily abide by the decision. If they don't, then there is another conflict to be dealt with similarly, OR the offending party is simply ostracised and therefore is no longer in a position to do further damage to the community.
Everything is voluntary.
I point out that this is in theory. In reality they are (unlike myself!) imperfect and so engage in some horrific acts like clitorectomies and such. But the idea of ONLY getting involved when a conflict arises seems to me to be a core principle which most of the world has never even considered, and one which SHOULD be considered strongly.
- NonE
It is essentially the
It is essentially the non-aggression principle which defines whether or not someone is a libertarian. Adopt and advocate it, and you are one, otherwise not. In theory this could apply to anarchists also, though many would prefer to be called socialists before being caught dead thought of as libertarians (for whatever reason).
The bit about Somali law is interesting. Some have advocated the notion that the only valid libertarian law is the law of torts. If a person isn't party to the transaction in question, he should have no standing to sue. This may or many not explain or otherwise be connected to the fact that when you see a criminal indictment (as opposed to a civil motion for suit), the state is always the plaintiff. This sets up enormous distortions in that the interests of the plaintiff's counsel (state's attorney) are not necessary in parallel with those of the victim, the victim's heirs or with the interests of society at large. Justice would be better served by several different measures if state's attorneys were replaced by people who represent actual victims, rather than law books.
A version of the NAP could even be added to statist constitutions: No cause of action where a state or states are the only complainant shall be heard by any court. This of course would lead to the rapid collapse of the system and the discarding of the constitution, presuming that taxpayers would rapidly de-fund the state knowing that it had lost its extortion enforcement mechanism.
Just yesterday -
Yesterday I was discussing this topic with my wife (albeit without actually using the term 'libertarian'), and we came to the same simple end result as Jorge :-)
Negative-positive
Now wait just a gorram minute.
"The only thing that our philosophy requires is a negative. It requires us not to violate the rights of others."
I disagree with the first sentence, but I agree with the second. The only thing that our philosophy requires is a positive: It requires us to live our lives and leave others alone to live their lives.
Anyone who would describe this philosophy in negative terms is not a real libertarian.
That was a joke.
Thick vs. Thin Approaches to Libertarianism
There's a longish piece I'd like to recommend on this topic, as it's pretty much the most thorough treatment of it that I'm aware of:
Libertarianism through Thick and Thin
I agree...
...that adherende to the nonagression principle is a sufficient condition for libertarianism, narrowly defined.
But treating other badly for race or gender reasons, taking advantage of one's authority in a hierarchy to push other people around, etc.--while not formally inconsistent with the NAP--is still at odds with the cultural and personality traits that attract most people to libertarianism.
As Charles Johnson said, one can be a consistent libertarian by adhering to the nonaggression principle and simultaneously supporting voluntary racist and authoritarian behavior--but it's *weird*. It's the kind of behavior that would naturally lead someone to wonder, "why's he even a libertarian, anyway?" The kinds of people who like turning Hispanics or Chinese away from their business establishments don't generally have the personality types that lead people to embrace the nonaggression principle.
How does that work?
How can one treat another badly, for any reason, in a voluntary society? Surely you don't mean "hurt feelings" or being offended? If a person evidences a desire or tendency to treat others badly, for whatever reason, those others will avoid them.
No particular label can define what a person feels, thinks or believes completely. The only actionable manifestation is aggression.
What we feel, believe or how we decide to interact with others is our own business. We will have to live with the consequences, whatever we do, say or choose.
Being weird
This I agree with. However, I would not claim that the individual who acted this way was not a libertarian on these grounds.
As far as weird goes, I knew a couple over 20 years ago in New York who were into B&D, with defined roles in the relationship. They were both very committed libertarians. I see nothing inconsistent, or weird, about this. That was their thing. No one was being coerced. That is all that matters.
I think the article Brad Spangler links to sums up the problem quite nicely by pointing out that there are many "Thick" (to use the article's term) forms of libertarianism. There is the Left (to which I generally subscribe) there are the Objectivists, the paleolibertarians and I am sure many others. The article then goes on to argue for one type of "Thick". But why choose that one? Which "Thick" form is the "real" libertarianism. Are the "real libertarians" justified in using force against the "fake" ones, as they are against the state and other coercers?
Additionally the article states:
This is wrong. "consistent, principled libertarianism" does not entail any such thing. It only entails that the libertarian in question not violate the rights of others (follow the Non-aggression principle). The above quote demands positive action. Therefore it is mistaken.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with being "weird". As far as the vast majority of the population is concerned, all libertarians are weird.