Reply #78: What libertarians offer is philosophical consistency

[rdarmand]

It's an interesting twist, too. There is no such thing as an all-inclusive philosophy, and perhaps that's why libertarianism seems to break down, e.g. privitization of roads, private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, etc. But the root principle is quite solid and extremely seductive; and that is that what a man produces represents the investment of his irreplaceable life, which belongs to no other. Therefore, no one has a right to what a man produces but the man himself. He may give it away if he wishes, or he may trade it with another in free and unforced exchange; but his rights in his property are absolute and inviolable. The only way this conclusion can be avoided is by abandoning the proposition that a man owns himself. It's a simple choice: are men free by nature, or are they by nature slaves to the common good?

I believe politicians are almost exclusively pragmatists. For them, principle is something to merely pay lip-service to. The politician with integrity is the one who, once bought, stays bought. In this theatre of the absurd, the Libertarians are a breath of fresh air. They stand for something, even when it leads to a ridiculous result.

But, despite the fact that some of their conclusions are outrageous, I believe their fundamental assumption is correct. Either a man owns himself, or he does not. If he owns himself, then he must also own the fruit of his labor. Thus is taxation inevitably and irredeemably theft; there is no avoiding the conclusion. Justifying taxation of a free people may be the most difficult philosophical problem facing the Democratic Party.