From turf@netcom.com Sun Jul 17 20:06:16 1994
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 12:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian McInturff 
To: James Daugherty 
Subject: Re: LIBER_files (repaired posting)

Here is LIBER_INTRO.  It is a collection of posts from 
various sources.  Please feel free to use what you like.
In the next message, I am sending LIBER_QUOTES, since
it is most people's favorite file, and itself gives
a good introduction to libertarianism.

Howdy:

The information you requested is listed below.  If there are
any problems with the transmission, please do not hesitate to
re-request it.  This file contains the following;

1.  Paul Schmidt's posting on Frequently Asked Questions about
Libertarianism.  This is a good thing to have and read if you
can't or won't buy the book "Libertarianism in One Lesson", by
David Bergland.

2.  A Broad Definition for Libertarianism by Bill Woolsey.

3.  Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy by Joseph Knight.

All articles reprinted with permission of the authors and may
be freely distributed as long as proper credit is retained. 

FILE: LIBER_INTRO

-------------------------------

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

These answers have been compiled from several sources.  Most of the
answers are derived or quoted from writings by David Bergland including
"Libertarianism in One Lesson" and "America's Libertarian Heritage."
Quotes are used with permission from David Bergland and the Advocates
for Self-Government and may be freely distributed as long as proper 
credit is retained.  All quoted answers will be marked and the source 
referenced in the bibliography.

Contents:

1.  What is libertarianism?
2.  Are libertarians liberal or conservative?
3.  How do libertarians approach the issues?
4.  What is the libertarian position on the military draft?
5.  Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press?
6.  Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting
    adults?
6a.   Does this apply to prostitution also?
7.  Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use?
7a.   But if drugs were legalized, wouldn't there be millions more drug
    addicts?
8.  Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty?
9.  How do libertarians want to handle immigration?
10. What position do libertarians have on subsidies for farm and business?
11. Are people better off with free trade than with tariffs?
12. What position do libertarians take on minimum wage laws?
13. What about the poor?
14. Don't we need affirmative action to keep bigoted employers from
    refusing to hire minorities and women?
15. How do libertarians feel about taxes?
15a.  I'm for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it?
16. Aren't you going too far?
17. Won't these ideas work only if everybody is good?


1. What is libertarianism?

Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty.  And we believe
that the only way to get it is through self-government...  NOT others-
government.

Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and 
tolerance.  Responsibility means you govern yourself.  Tolerance means 
you don't force your values on peaceful, honest people.

Today, however, others-government is giving us insecurity, conflict and
poverty.  Let's revitalize our heritage of self-government to create a
win-win world where everyone comes out ahead.  [4]

			-- Carole Ann Rand


2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative?

You have a better choice than just left or right.  The libertarian way
gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in
every way.  Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and
economic liberty.  Today's liberals like personal liberty but want
government to control your economic affairs.  Conservatives reverse
that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your
private life.

Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a
combination of the two.  Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you
have the right to decide for yourself what's best for you and to act on
that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do the
same and deal with them peacefully and honestly.

Today's liberals and conservatives have rejected America's heritage of
liberty and personal responsibility.  They want to put us all in their
straitjacket.  Americans built a great country without shackles.  It's
time to take them off again.  Break free of the useless left right
spectrum.  Think freedom on all issues.  Think libertarian.  [2]


3. How do libertarians approach the issues?

Libertarians use a caring, people centered approach to politics.
Politicians too frequently forget that their laws and regulations affect
real, live human beings.  Libertarians never lose sight of that fact.
We see each individual as unique, with great potential.  We want a 
system which encourages all of us to discover the best within ourselves 
and make the most of it.  A system which encourages the development of 
the most harmonious relationships among all people.

In dealing with political issues, libertarians focus on the people
involved.  Who is having a problem?  What is it?  What is the government
doing already, if anything, and might that be the cause of the problem?

Most importantly, Libertarians ask:  is anyone violating another's
rights?  Is someone committing murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud,
embezzlement, arson, trespass, etc.?  If so, then it's proper to call
on government to help the victim against the wrongdoer.  But, if not,
the government should not get involved.

In most instances, people are better off if allowed to work out their
own problems through voluntary cooperation without introducing the
coercive tool of government.  [3]


4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft?

History shows that free people can be counted on to defend their homes
and their country.  But the draft is slavery, and slaves make lousy
defenders of freedom.

I like knowing I'm being protected by people who are in the military
because they want to be there, not because they were forced against
their will to be there.

A military focused on defending America instead of policing the globe
would reduce manpower needs and further eliminate any reason to have a
draft or draft registration.

Let's let free people defend freedom.  [3]


5.  Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press?

America's free press is envied by freedom-starved people everywhere.
Dictators use a controlled press to silence opposition and to feed lies
to their citizens.

Americans would not like it if the government here owned or controlled
the newspapers.  Why should we like government control of TV and radio
any better?  As with printed words, broadcast words can and should be
regulated by the free market.

Americans should be able to freely choose what they will watch or listen
to, without Big Brother making those decisions for them.  [3]


6.  Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting
    adults?

Nothing is more personal than the way people chose to shape their sexual
relationships.  Government has no business intruding into people's
bedrooms.

This doesn't mean we must personally approve of the sexual behaviors of
others.  It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting
adults, no one has the right to use the force of government laws to try
to stop or punish them.

There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail
because of their sexual choices.  Let's respect people's right to
control their own bodies.  [3]


6a.  Does this apply to prostitution also?

Every day millions of adult Americans agree to make love.  There is no
justification for throwing them in jail.  These are peaceful voluntary
agreements between consenting adults.  A tiny fraction of these involve
money.

Criminal penalties do not stop prostitution.  They just create real
problems.  One study showed it costs taxpayers two thousand dollars
every time a prostitute is arrested.  Let's respect people's right to
control their own bodies.

Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair.  [3]


7.  Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use?

Alcohol prohibition tore America apart once.  Now it is the war on
drugs.  Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug
use.  All they do is make it harder to help people.  And just as
Prohibition created organized crime, today's drug laws keep organized
crime alive -- with all the violence and corruption that goes along with
it.

Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems.
Let's respect the right of people to control their own bodies.

Decriminalize drugs, help those who need it, and let the police spend
their time protecting us from real crime.  [3]


7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn't there be millions more drug
    addicts?

I, too, want to live in a society where people are healthy and
productive, not destroying their lives with addictive drugs.

All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few 
addicts.  Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also
that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs
inexpensively.

We have addicts today despite drug criminalization.  We also have the
violence that is caused by drugs being illegal.  Let's decriminalize
drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it.  [3]


8.  Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty?

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city
streets safely and be secure in their homes.  We also want our
Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil
liberties.  In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated
equally under the law, as our Constitution requires.  America's millions
of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask
anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity.  Gun
ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify
criminal penalties.

A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection
against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion.  America's
founders knew that.  It is still true today.


9.  How do libertarians want to handle immigration?

People have the right to travel anywhere, and to take any job offered
them, so long as they do it at their own expense and without violating
the rights of others.

A way to help the poor is to let them go where the work is, regardless
of borders.  Studies show that immigrants don't take jobs from others,
they add to the economy and help create more jobs.

America was built by immigrants who came here seeking nothing but
opportunity and freedom -- and created the greatest, most productive
society ever.

Respect for human rights and compassion for the world's poor require
that we relax immigration restrictions.  [3]


10. What position do libertarians have on subsidies for farm and business?

All business people, including farmers, should be able to offer their
products in a free market without being subsidized by others.  The way
to help both producers and consumers is to remove government programs
and restrictions which have damaged America's free enterprise system.

Subsidies are harmful and unfair.  Why should some businesses be taxed
to give handouts to others?  Why should you pay higher prices to support
government favored businesses?

Let's stop this nonsense.  Then business could operate in a free market
and all of us could be better fed, clothed and housed at lower cost.
[3]


11.  Are people better off with free trade than with tariffs?

Free trade provides consumers with better goods at lower prices.  Trade
restrictions produce the opposite:  shoddy goods and higher prices.

With free trade, consumers pay lower prices for products and thereby
have more money left to spend on other goods, domestic as well as
foreign.

Free trade also helps the cause of world peace.  In the 1920's and 30's,
trade barriers went up everywhere, directly contributing to the outbreak
of World War II.  If goods don't cross borders, armies will.

Let's end all trade restrictions and free the world's resources to be
allocated in the most efficient and productive manner.  [3]


12.  What position do libertarians take on minimum wage laws?

Skilled, experienced workers make high wages because employers compete
to hire them.  Poorly educated, inexperienced young people can't get
work because minimum wage laws make them too expensive to hire as
trainees.  Repeal of the minimum wage would allow many young, minority 
and poor people to work.

It must be asked, if the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise
it to $200 an hour?  Even the most die-hard minimum wage advocate can
see there's something wrong with that proposal.

The only "fair" or "correct" wage is what an employer and employee
voluntarily agree upon.  We should repeal minimum wage now.  [3]


13. What about the poor?

I want to break the chains of poverty and help the disabled.  First
remove laws that prevent work.  Second, privatize welfare.

Permits, licensing, zoning, labor laws.  They all stop people who want
to work, especially minorities.  Repeal those laws.  Private charity is
more compassionate and delivers the goods better than the government
welfare plantation.

We can't make a perfect world.  We can do more for the poor by replacing
inefficient government programs with effective voluntary assistance. [1]

			-- David Bergland


14. Don't we need affirmative action to keep bigoted employers from
    refusing to hire minorities and women?

Libertarians want to see people of all types working in the most
harmonious relationships.  "Affirmative action" refers to laws which
force people into relationships whether they want them or not.  Not
too many years ago, there were laws in many states which prevented people
of different races from doing a variety of things together, working,
eating, marriage, etc.  Libertarians oppose all such laws because the
people involved have the right to decide for themselves whether or not
to enter a relationship or association.

An old saying states:  "it takes two to tango."  Relationships or
associations require at least two people.  We cannot justify using force
to keep people out of voluntary relationships and we cannot justify
forcing private citizens into relationships against their will.

Government employment is a different case.  The only criteria for
employment or advancement in government work should be merit.  The
Constitution requires that we all be given equal treatment under the
law.  Since governments are created by law, they are Constitutionally
required to be absolutely even handed.  Private citizens or companies on
the other hand have the right to be stupid and suffer the consequences.

Attempts to correct bigotry with affirmative action haven't worked very
well.  Such laws are easy for bigots to circumvent and people tend to
think minority employees did not earn their positions on merit even if
they did.  They also make it possible for bigots to harass minorities by
demanding employment at minority owned businesses.  [2]


15.  How do libertarians feel about taxes?

Americans already obtain a host of services from private providers.
There is every reason to think that other services, from postal delivery
to education to road building and maintenance, could be provided more
efficiently and at lower cost by the private sector.

We should support all moves to reduce and repeal taxes because taxes are
obtained immorally, by force.  The income tax is particularly evil,
since it penalizes productivity and forces all of us to expose our 
private affairs to government snoopers.

We had no income tax before 1914 and America prospered.  Replacing the
income tax with voluntary methods for financing services should be our
goal, and we should begin right now.  [3]


15a. I'm for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it?

Think of government as a conglomerate of service businesses.  The
providers of those services do not have to be government employees, and
the services do not have to be paid for with tax dollars.  Whether it is
education, security, transportation, charity, energy, or whatever, the
private sector is already doing it for less.  To cut taxes, we must
allow private service providers to replace inefficient bureaucracy.
Market competition will give us better service at lower cost, and put
the consumers in control.  [3]


16.  Aren't you going too far?

I want you to be able to govern yourself.  The libertarian way lets you 
decide how much independence is good for you and lets others decide for 
themselves.

Replacing political controls with self-government will only go as far as
you let it.  So let's experiment.  Cut foreign aid.  Deregulate
transportation.  Repeal one drug law.  Cut farm subsidies.  Cut taxes.

As you gain self government, you will probably want more.  That's for
you to decide.  No one can force you to be free.  [1]

			-- David Bergland


17.  Won't these ideas work only if everybody is good?

You don't have to believe people are always good for freedom to work.
Most people, most of the time, deal with each other on the libertarian
premise of respect for the rights of others.  You don't want to be 
pushed around or to push your neighbors around.  You don't steal, cheat 
or mug people.  Very few among us commit all the crime.  Society would
collapse if most people were evil most of the time.

If people are basically evil, the last thing you'd want is a big
government staffed by those evil folks exercising control over you. [1]

			-- David Bergland


Bibliography:

[1]  "Liberty Communicator Course," Advocates for Self-Government, 1988.

[2]  Bergland, David, "America's Libertarian Heritage:  The Politics of
     Freedom," Orpheus Publications, 1773 Bahama Place, Costa Mesa, CA
     92626, (714)751-8980, 1991.

[3]  "The Liberator," Spring 1992, pp. 18-19, Advocates for Self-
     Government, 3955 Pleasantdale Road, No. 106-A, Atlanta, GA 30340,
     (800)932-1776.

[4]  "The Liberator," Summer 1993, p. 13, Advocates for Self-Government.

-- 
Paul Schmidt:  Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604,  (615)283-0084,  pjs269@tijc02.uucp
"May it be to the world...
to assume the blessings and security of self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson


------------------------------

A BROAD DEFINITION FOR LIBERTARIANISM
by Bill Woolsey *

     The purpose of this posting is to propose a broad definition
for libertarianism.   _Libertarianism_:  a direction for change
away from the status quo of the late twentieth century; towards
increases in _both_ economic and personal liberty.
     Libertarians, then, are those sympathetic towards the repeal
of existing government programs, and skeptical of new government
programs, _across the board_.  Given that broad definition,
libertarians are quite common in the U.S.  In the early eighties,
between fifteen and twenty percent of voters favored change in
the libertarian direction (Maddox and Lilie 1984, pp. p. 16).
     The broad definition of libertarianism can be better
understood by comparing and contrasting it with modern
conservatism.  There are some similarities.  Conservatives share
the libertarians' general skepticism about government.  And like
libertarians, they are sympathetic towards proposals for
deregulation and privatization of the economy.
     Yet conservatives have several characteristics that
libertarians do _not_ share.  Conservatives are sympathetic to
government efforts to promote traditional values in private life,
especially through the criminal justice system.  And
conservatives are inadequately skeptical of government efforts to
promote defense preparedness and excessively sympathetic to
interventions to support foreign despots.
     Libertarianism also can be compared and contrasted with
modern liberalism.  There are some similarities.  Liberals share
the libertarians' sympathy towards proposals to expand individual
privacy rights against government efforts to promote traditional
moral values.  They also share the libertarians' skepticism about
the need for increased (or even existing) levels of defense
expenditure and intervention in support of foreign despots.
    The primary difference between libertarians and liberals is
that liberals are highly sympathetic towards government
intervention to promote economic prosperity, especially programs
aimed at fighting poverty.  And liberals are not sufficiently
skeptical of efforts by government to promote humanistic values
in private life and intervention in favor of "progressive"
foreign regimes.
     The broad definition of libertarianism refers to a large
group of people whose views can be distinguished from the
dominant political perspectives:  conservatism and liberalism. 
Libertarians are sympathetic to proposals for deregulation and
privatization of the economy as well as protection of individual
privacy rights.  They are skeptical of government in general,
including its efforts to promote prosperity, fight poverty, spend
money on defense programs, promote traditional or humanistic
moral values, and help "progressive" or despotic foreign regimes.

Libertarianism:  Moderate, Mainstream, and Radical
      If libertarianism is broadly defined as a _direction for
change_, libertarians can be distinguished by their moderation or
extremism.  Exactly how much change in the libertarian direction
do various libertarians favor?  Three broad groups can be
distinguished.
     "Moderate libertarians" favor relatively little change from
the status quo.  Because they are skeptical of government, they
favor few, if any, new government programs.  They are, therefore,
equally unhappy with the initiatives that conservative
Republicans propose on social issues and those that liberal
Democrats propose on economic issues.  Further, because of their
sympathy towards increased economic and personal liberty, they
favor some proposals that involve modest reductions in the size
and scope of government.  They tend to approve of the economic
proposals of conservative Republicans and favor the positions of
liberal Democrats on social issues.  Moderate libertarians are
often described as liberal on the social issues and conservative
on the economic issues.  They favor modest net decreases in
government _across the board_.
     While moderate libertarians are probably most common (making
up most of the fifteen to twenty percent of voters who favor the
libertarian direction), they lack coherent intellectual
direction.  There are few, if any, books or articles calling for
moderate libertarian change.  Further, moderate libertarians have
little or no political leadership.  Senator Tsongas' effort to
capture the Democratic presidential nomination did involve some
overtures to socially liberal and economically conservative
voters, but his campaign was more moderately liberal than
libertarian.  Governor Weld of Massachusetts _may_ come to
provide political leadership for moderate libertarians.  (The
Committee for a Libertarian Majority seems to advocate that the
Libertarian Party provide both intellectual and political
leadership to moderate libertarians.)
     "Mainstream libertarians" advocate more radical change from
the status quo than do the moderates.  They favor massive
deregulation and privatization of the economy, leaving minimal
government intervention.  They favor very low tax rates,
providing revenues sufficient to finance a few public goods and
very limited aid to the poor.  And they favor some government
intervention to control serious "neighborhood effects" (like
pollution).  They also support personal liberties and oppose
paternalistic legislation, including government prohibition of
victimless crimes. 
     These libertarians are best identified by their intellectual
leadership.  Leading mainstream libertarians include F.A. Hayek,
Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan, all of whom have won the
Nobel prize in economics.  Hayek and Friedman have written
popular books advocating their views.  And the Cato Institute and
Reason Foundation emphasize mainstream libertarian positions. 
There is, however, no political leadership for mainstream
libertarians.  (The Committee for a Libertarian Majority seems to
advocate recruiting "mainstream" libertarians into the LP.)  
     "Radical libertarians" favor the most change from the status
quo.  They take libertarian skepticism and sympathies to their
logical conclusion and favor _complete_ economic and personal
freedom.  They usually insist on strict adherence to some
fundamental principle like non-aggression, noninitiation of
force, self-ownership, or individual rights.  Radical
libertarians, therefore, favor all of the deregulation and
privatization favored by the mainstream libertarians and then go
further.  They demand the abolition of taxation.  They insist
that public goods be financed voluntarily and oppose all
government aid to the poor.  They reject government efforts to
control neighborhood effects.  Like the mainstream libertarians,
they favor repealing government prohibition of drugs,
prostitution, and gambling.
     Radical libertarians have both intellectual and political
leadership.  Numerous books and articles make the case for
complete personal and economic freedom, including some scholarly
treatises on philosophy and economics and many popular
treatments.  By far the best known presentations are in Ayn
Rand's novels, though she calls her position "capitalism" rather
than libertarianism.  As for political leadership, the
Libertarian Party has traditionally advocated radical
libertarianism.  Its membership pledge, statement of principles,
and party platform all demand complete personal and economic
freedom. (The Committee for a Libertarian Majority, however,
proposes to drop the pledge and modify the platform, apparently
so that the LP will be open to "mainstream" libertarians and
appeal to "moderate" libertarian voters.)     

*Associate Professor of Economics, The Citadel, Charleston SC.
29409.  (803) 953-5161.  I want to thank those who commented on
earlier drafts on libernet-d.  I welcome further comments on
libernet-d, mail, or personal E-mail.  May be distributed freely.  

------------------------------

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.

-- -- -- --

This post may be distributed freely as long as proper credit is 
retained.

What is the Libertarian Party?
 
The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political
party in the United States.  Over 100 Libertarians hold elective or 
appointive public office.  Libertarian Party members participate in 
a variety of educational and political activities aimed at restoring
America's committment to free enterprise and civil liberties.  The 
Libertarian Party is proud of the progress it has made during its 
short history, against what many saw as insurmountable odds.
-- -- --
Originally prepared by Joseph Knight.
Typed in by John G. Otto who accepts responsibility for errors 
of transcription and style.
--
------------------------------

END LIBER_INTRO;