Sixty-Three Questions That Every Thinking Libertarian Should Be Able to Answer

Table of Contents

1. Foundational Questions
2. Questions About Self-Ownership and Property
3. Questions Related to Borders, Nationalism, and Defense
4. Questions About Taxes and Economic Issues
5. Questions About Partisan Politics and Authoritarian Ideologies
6. Questions About Social, Domestic, and Moral Issues

Content

1. Foundational Questions

Question #1. Would you describe your libertarian strain of thought as capitalist? Why or why not? Should libertarianism be associated with any particular economic system; for example, free markets, capitalism, or perhaps something else?

Question #2. How would your libertarian ideology deal with the need to preserve the rights of majorities and minorities alike? Is libertarian individualism compatible with democracy, multiculturalism, and collectivism, or not?

Question #3. Is socialism compatible with a free-market libertarian society? Can socialism be voluntary, and if so, how, or under what conditions?

Question #4. Is the Non-Aggression Principle (N.A.P.) sound? Libertarians tend to be against banning most things; is it enough to ban aggression, or is it necessary to ban things like domination, hierarchy, and exploitation as well?



2. Questions About Self-Ownership and Property

Question #5. Would it be accurate to say that “an individual human being owns oneself”? Would it be accurate to say that “an individual human being owns oneself as property?” Is it important to make such a distinction, and why or why not?

Question #6. Does the right to own property derive from the right to own yourself? If not, then where does the right to own property come from?

Question #7. How would you define private property? Is “private property” distinct from “personal possessions”, or not?

Question #8. Can private property be claimed without the assistance of some state or government? If so, then how? 

Question #9. What is your view on “landmine homesteading”, the process by which a person claims a plot of land by planting landmines around its perimeter? Is willingness to defend a property all it takes to justify claiming it as your own?

Question #10. What actions are necessary in order to justify owning property privately? Is the Lockean Proviso sound, or do you support Occupancy and Use Norms, or some other arrangement?

Question #11. Would it be desirable for private property to exist, even if it can exist without government? (Specifically, with respect to land, and the ownership of workplaces)

Question #12. Is "privatize everything" a helpful or hurtful slogan, in your opinion? Is there any resource which you feel should not be privatized (and if so what are they)?

Question #13. Should workers expect to be compensated with 100% of the value of the effort they contributed?

Question #14. Is work voluntary? And can employment for the benefit of another person be voluntary?

Question #15. Are hierarchy and exploitation inherently wrong, or inherently coercive in a way that violates the Non-Aggression Principle?

Question #16. What is your libertarian ideology's stance on labor unions and cooperative enterprises?

Question #17. Is rent voluntary, or is rent theft? Do all forms of renting violate the N.A.P., or do only economic rents violate the N.A.P. (or neither)?

Question #18. If you own a business, should you be in any sense obligated to serve whomever comes in? Why or why not? Would it be desirable to require businesses to serve all potential customers, if the state didn't exist, and why or why not?

Question #19. Can intellectual property be protected without government? Should it be protected? If so, how?



3. Questions Related to Borders, Nationalism, and Defense

Question #20. Are borders desirable? If so, does the right to have borders derive from our right to own private property, and if so, how?

Question #21. Would borders exist without government, and should they?

Question #22. Can nationalism exist without the state, and should it? Can fascism exist without the state?

Question #23. Is law enforcement good, natural, and necessary? Are the police necessary? Can you think of any circumstances under which ordinary civilians ought to have the right to arrest others?

Question #24. Should jails and prisons exist? Would they exist without the state, and if so, how would your strain of libertarianism propose to address the risk that applying the profit incentive to the issue of detention of criminal suspects and convicts, could result in increased arrests in order to justify building and filling more for-profit prisons?

Question #25. Can militaries exist without a government, and should they exist in a stateless society?

Question #26. Without the state, would people voluntarily band together to defend themselves, or would some form of “voluntary social contract” be necessary to ensure equal contribution to defense efforts?

Question #27. Are there any circumstances under which you would support gun confiscations? Mandatory military service (the draft) or draft registration? What about mandatory public service?

Question #28. Would private military contractors exist without the state, and should they?

Question #29. Would war exist without the state? Is war ever necessary, and if so, when and why?

Question #30. Can a “minimal government” exist? Is it possible to have government, but at the same time, not have statism?

Question #31. Would justice systems exist without government, and should they? Could there exist such thing as a “stateless legal order”, and if so, what would it look like, and how can it be achieved?

Question #32. Does anarchy mean a lack of rules, a lack of rulers, or something else? Would rules, laws, legislation, and regulations exist without government, and should they?

Question #33. Would contracts exist without government, and what qualifications make a person competent enough to enter into an enforceable contractual agreement? Can contracts be successful without guarantees of enforcement, and if so, how?




4. Questions About Taxes and Economic Issues

Question #34. Can taxation be voluntary, or is taxation always theft? Explain your answer.

Question #35. If civil order couldn't be sustained without some sort of involuntary taxation, then would you choose to ignore the need for civil order and not impose a taxation system, or would you choose some sort of so-called “least bad” or “semi-voluntary” taxation system? If you would, then 

which system would you choose, and why?

Question #36. Is it enough to assume that all exchanges which take place, are voluntary? If not, then is it enough to require all exchanges to be voluntary? Should we have higher standards in addition to voluntaryism in economic transactions?

Question #37. Where do corporations' privileges come from; the state, or some other source? Can corporations exist without the assistance of the state? If so, how? Would it be desirable that they exist, in the absence of the state?

Question #38. Are currency and money the same thing? Are currency and money good, natural, and necessary? Would they exist without government, and should they? What can and can't be used as a currency?

Question #39. Is the use of currency voluntary, or is inflation theft? Are all forms of money and currency intrinsically subjective in value, and is this a good thing or a bad thing? Are money and currency intrinsically control tools?

Question #40. Are rent, interest, and profit good, natural, and necessary? Would they exist without government, and should they? Why or why not?

Question #41. Which is a more valuable mode of organization in an economy; cooperation or competition? Why? Are there other ways to organize the economy? Is organizing the economy desirable in the first place, and can it be done without the government?

Question #42. Are there any resources which are abundant? Are markets, competition, and trade still necessary to help distribute and allocate goods which are abundant?

Question #43. Is overpopulation real? How might your libertarian strain of thought propose we deal with the problems typically associated with “overpopulation”?



5. Questions About Partisan Politics and Authoritarian Ideologies

Question #44. Which of the two major political parties have done the most damage to economic and social freedom? If you had to choose, which party would be the easiest for your strain of libertarianism to get along with, and why?

Question #45. Which governmental departments, welfare programs, or functions do you think are the most important to abolish? Which are the most urgent to abolish?

Question #46. What are the proper roles of federal, state, and local governments, as you understand it? Do you believe it is possible to reconcile anarchism with federalism – or achieve anarchism within a federalist system like the American system - and if so, then how?

Question #47. Are there any programs or functions of government which you think it is important to delay abolishing until we are sure we can live without them (and if so, what are they?)

Question #48. Does socialism always devolve into authoritarianism? Was the Nazi regime the result of collapsed socialism, or were the Nazis capitalists (or perhaps something else)?

Question #49. How do you feel about America's decision to align with the Soviet Union during World War II? Who did more damage to economic and social freedom – and who killed more - Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? If your strain of libertarian ideology had to align with either the Nazis or the Bolsheviks, which would you choose, and why?

Question #50. Considering your answer to the previous question, what assurances can you make to other libertarians about your strain of libertarianism's dedication to embracing freedom and liberty, and to opposing authoritarianism and states?




6. Questions About Social, Domestic, and Moral Issues

Question #51. What is your stance on positive and negative rights? What are your thoughts on the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and privilege?

Question #52. Can marriage exist without government recognition? If so, how? Has the problem of undue restrictions upon the rights of same-sex couples been solved yet, or not?

Question #53. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of abortion?

Question #54. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of public health?

Question #55. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of drug addiction?

Question #56. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address the issue of mental illness and mass shootings?

Question #57. How would you, or your strain of libertarianism, propose to address environmental and ecological issues?

Question #58. How would your strain of libertarianism propose to provide people with resources which we typically perceive as public utilities (such as energy, transportation, plumbing, roads, and infrastructure)?

Question #59. What are your thoughts about the role of religion and spirituality in an anarchist, stateless, or voluntary society? Should the practice of religion be allowed in an anarchist society, or should society find a way to get rid of it as just another form of indoctrination like government?

Question #60. Where does morality come from: the state or government, religion or spirituality, or some other source?

Question #61. Does non-aggression imply pacifism, and should people who subscribe to the N.A.P. have to be pacifists? What does pacifism mean to you? If we place peace too high among our values, does it put freedom and liberty at risk? Are force, aggression, violence, and coercion ever necessary, and if so, when?

Question #62. How would your libertarian ideology deal with problems like racism, ultra-nationalism, and hate groups? When, if ever, should “hate speech” be prohibited? Should Antifa be considered a domestic terrorist group?

Question #63. In the infamous "Trolley Problem", would you pull the lever to kill one person in order to save five others; or would you do nothing and leave the lever where it is, resulting in the death of five people? Explain your answer.

Written on October 4th, 7th, and 8th, 2019

Published on October 8th, 2019

Edited on October 24th, 2019

Originally Published as

"Sixty-Two Questions Every Thinking Libertarian Should Be Able to Answer

A Constructive Critique of the Libertarian Party's Platform and Messaging

     The following questions were written as part of the Libertarian Party of Illinois's vetting process for nominees. The answers were written on September 20th, 2019, as part of my application for the Libertarian Party's nomination for U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th Congressional District, for the election to be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.

     Q: Which plank(s) of the Libertarian Party Platform do you agree with, and why?

     A: I agree with the party's strong desire to protect civil liberties, and to achieve decentralized/localized government. I appreciate the party's understanding of the need to balance privilege with responsibility, while distinguishing privilege from freedom. I agree that economic freedom and social freedom go hand in hand, and that the government should stay out of both our bedrooms and our finances, and refrain from discriminating against us on the basis of our membership in any group. I agree that the Non-Aggression Principle should guide our economic morality to accept exchanges which are both voluntary and mutually beneficial. I agree that a person has a right to what he produces, and that most forms of taxation take away the incentive to produce by confiscating the product. I agree that both spending and taxation by government, and social and corporate welfare, are out of control, and need to be reigned in, and so do the size and scope of government in general, the size of the federal workforce, and the pay and benefits of elected and appointed officials. I agree with the right of self-determination and the right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of our liberties.

     Q: Which plank(s) of the Libertarian Party Platform do you not agree with, and why?

     A: I agree with the vast majority of the planks of the L.P. platform; the only areas of disagreement I might have at the nuts-and-bolts policy level, would be cases in which some proposed reform: 1) is extremely popular, or else optional; 2) is properly constitutionally authorized through the amendment process; 3) can be done as locally as possible; and 4) has a sunset clause. A proposed law which has all of these characteristics, would likely satisfy me, as long as it is a wise and necessary law. I would be willing to propose and pass new laws, but only while repealing several outdated laws for each new one enacted. I believe that most "taxation is theft", but I also believe that the least harmful taxes are those which are minimally detrimental to productivity.

     The issues I have with the Libertarian Party relate more to some of its messaging and rhetoric, than to its policy conclusions (which are nearly unobjectionable; their only flaw is that a variety of potential solutions is not articulated in each section). I consider myself an "open-borders", "free trade" libertarian, who supports "markets, not capitalism", and questions whether it is necessary for government to play a role in the recognition and protection of property claims and property titles. This puts me somewhat at odds with the libertarians who are more likely to describe themselves as capitalists than free-marketers, and as strong supporters of property rights and self-ownership.

     While I am a strong supporter of individual rights (such as bodily autonomy, the right to keep what you create, and the freedom from being forced to work), I do not see the rhetoric of "self-ownership" as a helpful or necessary way of thinking about our right of self-control, because I think it encourages us to see our bodies as mere pieces of property. I agree with the second sentence in Section 1.1 of the L.P. platform, but I don't think "individuals own their bodies" is either a meaningful statement, a clear statement, or helpful messaging to get people to understand our ideas, because some say self-ownership means the right to sell ourselves and destroy ourselves (which I would question, on the grounds that we didn't create ourselves). Some of the logic behind self-ownership theory is valid, but we must avoid misinterpreting it so as to suggest that our rights are based on how much property we own. But as long as Libertarians continue to value "life, liberty, and property" equally - and don't prioritize the need to protect physical property over the need to protect innocent human lives - then I will be with the L.P. one hundred percent.

     I should also note that, as a "markets, not capitalism" libertarian. I would caution the Libertarian Party to avoid designating "capitalism" as its preferred economic system, because I believe that "free markets" is not only a more popular term, but a distinct school of thought altogether. I agree with those who believe that America has never had totally free markets, not with those who believe we have free markets right now. I take the side of the "market anarchists" (but not the "anarcho-capitalists") in the debate between "minimal government" and anarchism, because I believe that government is unnecessary whenever voluntary association, direct action, mutual aid, and mutually beneficial exchange, are practiced freely.

     I support free markets, free trade (with no treaties being necessary), an open market system, free competition and free cooperation, and equal liberty through equality of opportunity. But I do not believe that being exploited, overworked, undervalued, or poisoned without one's knowledge, are among our rights or our freedoms. That's why I would be willing to support restrictions limiting the number of hours which can be worked consecutively, such as in the trucking trade (but I suspect that most LP members would have no issue with this, as long as such restrictions are properly authorized by the law, enforced by the most local level of government possible, and properly funded). While some foreign nations are plagued with labor abuses, I would not support increased tariffs, nor any other form of "economic punishment"; because that does not solve the problem. The solution is to unabashedly lower our own tariffs to zero, while achieving better labor standards domestically, setting a good example for other countries. Trade wars - and high tariffs and sales taxes - only lead to increased politicization of trade, and eventually to trade blocs, sanctions, embargoes, cold wars, and hot wars. The solution to unfree trade is more free trade.

     Some Libertarians may disagree with me on some of those points, but I am willing to engage them and entertain their ideas, while explaining why I think it would be better for the L.P.'s and the libertarian movement's principles and messaging strategy in the long term, if it maximizes its potential to appeal to everyone who has traditionally called themselves libertarians, including not only the classical liberals, but also the anarchists of 19th century Europe, with whom the term "libertarian" originated. I say this not as criticism, but as a way to suggest making the Libertarian Party into the biggest tent for libertarians possible.

Written on September 20th, 2019
Originally Published on September 20th, 2019
Edited on October 9th, 2019