Does anyone really understand libertarianism?

Some critics say that there are many definitions of libertarianism -- other critics caricature libertarianism and compare a libertarian society to Somalia. There has been much written by libertarian thinkers through the years, but I doubt the critics have read the literature, and this is the problem.

I have been in many debates this past year and the common problem is that most of the people  criticizing libertarianism haven't read Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Nozick, Chodorov, Narverson or any of the other libertarian writers. This would be like critizing Marxism without ever studying Marxism. It's not very helpful to make up a popular version of libertarianism as a strawman to tear down -- read the literature if you want to know what you're criticizing or considering -- don't accept popular reductions reduced by people who are defendng a statist, non-libertarian approach.

Yes, libertarian writers have different ideas, just as modern liberals or conservatives have different takes on their political philosophy or pragmatic non-philosophy, but there are main principles that distinguish libetarian thought from those who support different degrees of statism. It's not a matter of reducing libertarianism down to a party platform, although the Libertarian Party has one, it's a matter of understanding the principles involved and whether one believes these principles should be applied to governance or not -- if one believes the principles shouldn't be applied, it would help if they knew and understood the principles and then gave good reasons why they shouldn't be applied. 

Individual rights lost

Frank Chodorov wrote:

Whatever else socialism is, or is claimed to be, its first tenet is the denial of private property. All brands of socialism, and there are many, are agreed that property rights must be vested in the political establishment. None of the schemes identified with this ideology, such as the nationalization of industry, or socialized medicine, or the abolition of free choice, or the planned economy, can become operative if the individual's claim to his property is recognized by the government.

For decades a collectivist mindset has been pushed on the American psyche through government, education and the media. The common welfare has been elevated above individual rights, and property rights are no longer seen as natural to humans -- most people now believe that government has a right to take part of what we have for the common welfare of the nation. Even "public interest" in a city is enough to have your land and home taken. Socialism has taken a particular form in America, what we have called a mixed economy -- it's a mixed ideology with free market principles and the ideology of classical liberalism becoming less influential as time goes on.

Lately many statists have defended the right of the President, without a trial, to decide that a citizen is a threat to the State and that asassination is a proper action to take, simply on the order of the President.

The interstate commerce clause has been expanded to place practically all enterprise under the regulatory control of the government. License laws have blocked many from entering occupations which only require knowledge that anyone can gain on their own. The books in Washington DC are filled with regulations which when looked at one by one most appear to be for the advantage of some companies or industries over overs. Lobbying has paid off. 

Chidren are forced into the public education system, and now the healthcare law will force citizens to buy an insurance policy -- something that could not be imagined just a few years ago.

The individual has been under constant attack and government is even making plans to regulate eating habits, and although marijuana use is widespread and accepted across the country, government still makes its use a crime. There are still places in the country where alcohol can't be served on Sunday, and some dry counties still exist. Practically every aspect of our lives is regulated by government, and since the pasage of the 16th amendment there's no limit on how much of our wealth can be confiscated for government use.

Chodorov also wrote:

When the individual says he has a valid title to life, he means that all that is he, is his own: his body, his mind, his faculties. Maybe there is something else in life, such as a soul, but without going into that realm, he is willing to settle on what he knows about himself — his consciousness. All that is "I" is "mine." That implies, of course, that all that is "you" is "yours" — for, every "you" is an "I." Rights work both ways.

But, while just wanting to live gives the individual a title to life, it is an empty title unless he can acquire the things that make life liveable, beginning with food, raiment, and shelter. These things do not come to you because you want them; they come as the result of putting labor to raw materials. You have to give something of yourself — your brawn or your brain — to make the necessary things available. Even wild berries have to be picked before they can be eaten. But the energy you put out to make the necessary things is part of you; it is you. Therefore, when you cause these things to exist, your title to yourself, your labor, is extended to the things. You have a right to them simply because you have a right to life.

We have moved away from individual rights to a situation where rights are decided by government, and the individual is no longer protected from violation. As long as a powerful State controls government, education and media, this situation will only deteriorate because the State is interested in protecting promoting its own interests, and has no concern for individuals. Regardless of all the rationalized defenses of the State, this is the reality, and only we can change it.

This is not a right or left problem -- it's not a Tea Party issue alone. The loss of individual rights will eventually affect everyone, and we will have given the rights away of generations to come. This is a tragedy, a crime, that crosses partisan lines, because both left and right wil be in power at different times. This reality has to be faced by everyone.