The author means well, and most of the principles are good: but there are some few contradictions where he fails to fully realize the definition of a free people, and goes back on his support for natural law and property rights and espouses the tyranny of a majority: however on the whole it the book is a good compendium of the American founder's ideals in a modern context.I'd like to expand on that and examine the 28 principles listed in the book as they relate to libertarian philosophy in general and mine in particular.
"Natural law" is a bit vague but the theory is of a common law that civilized people recognize: of course, nobody agrees entirely as to what it is. Certainly non-initiation of aggression would be included, though, which would also cover things like respect for another's property. As examples he lists unalienable rights (see #8), unalienable duties (#9), habeas corpus, limited government (how limited? the non-aggression principle (NAP) is sufficient here too!), separation of powers, self-preservation, right to contract, and others; in short, it gets your whites whiter and gets bloodstains out of carpet. But it is all unnecessary with (or flows from) the non-aggression principle, a much more succinct axiom on which to build a civilized (voluntary) society.
Also somewhat vague. The converse is certainly true: following Tyler's dictum, envious and greedy people of little virtue feel entitled to the product of their hard-working betters. I'd like to live among moral people—specifically, those that follow my morals, as would most people. But I'd also be happy to live among people that followed the NAP: they are then moral by definition.
Better still to have leaders that can't do any harm—i.e., can't initiate aggression against anyone either by direct application of force (assault, confiscation) or threat thereof (taxation).
Many nations manage to stay "free" in today's terms (i.e., they can vote to change the names of their overlords every few years) without particular virtue (in fact scandals involving politicians are legion) or religion. Certainly one would hope that faith in Christ and a devotion to sound Biblical teachings would inspire a leader to do well, but there have been a number of public failures even of Christian leaders.
I believe this, but he does a disservice to Christians everywhere with his hand-waving in this section; furthermore, it is not a principle but a statement.
This chapter is excellent: it emphasizes that people should be treated equally by the law and have equal rights, but that people are not born with equal faculties, and are not entitled to equal influence, property, or other advantages. To that I add people make themselves unequal by their choices in life: someone with a better credit record will legitimately be treated better than a profligate debtor, or a felon. But some of the examples he gives look good but are wanting: he says that people's right should be protected equally… "at the print shop", for example, without regard to the rights of the owner of said shop, who should not be required to do business with anybody and should be free to discriminate as he wishes in his private business (and suffer the consequences if he does so unfairly).
An extension of the previous.
Most of his examples are true and good, and are derivable from the NAP and self-ownership: rights to self-government, bear arms, own, develop, and dispose of property, make personal choices, free conscience, choose a profession, choose a mate, beget one's kind, assemble, petition, free speech, free press*, enjoy the fruits of one's labors, barter and trade, invent, explore*, privacy, provide personal security, nature's necessities (air, food, water, clothing, shelter)*, fair trial, free association, contract. I would take issue with the starred positive rights listed, e.g. there is no right to explore if it requires trespassing, or to food via theft.
Also vague.
No! This is the same tyranny of the majority that subjects us to so much redistributive theft today, to pay for so many programs that are not only unused and unwanted, but also unhelpful, e.g., welfare introducing a generational spiral of dependency and disincentives to ambition and work.
True, with the caveat that it would be immoral to attempt to replace a NAP-following minimal government that efficiently handles national defense (not military adventurism), police to prevent or stop initiation of force or fraud (but not to hassle people for victimless crimes) with one of another type, that will initiate force against people and steal from them.
Although this enhances scalability it didn't manage to stop legalization of slavery, passage of the Federal income tax, Japanese internment, Social Security/Medicare, and massive taxation, spending, and debts. Since we have the technology, direct democracy could hardly be worse. Presence or absence of the NAP as a governing principle would vastly overshadow republicanism.
Indeed. Include the NAP; it's the only way to be sure.
Property rights are key. The NAP extends to others not violating your property rights: trespassing and theft are aggressive acts.
Amen!
It seems to work. This is more about the deck chairs than the course of the ship.
Better to use one big gun: the NAP. Checks and balances haven't always worked out so well.
Absolutely. But be careful who you allow to interpret it.
Very limited. No initiation of aggression, for example. Not far enough, Skousen; go further!
False; see above. If there's a threat, people will react: if, for example, the limited defensive military detected a great threat, patriots would, as in the days of the Minutemen, rally to provide "blood and treasure."
Subsidiarity is a sound principle, all the way to the individual.
Of course.
Maybe, maybe not: not government's business to rob people to provide it. Diligent parents and virtuous citizens will make it available; and if not, then it is not desired and robbery is no legitimate way to source it.
Agreed. While initiation of aggression is frowned upon by libertarians, tempered self-defense constitutes a valid response to aggression.
Definitely. He uses a good term, too: separatism, not isolationism. Read Ron Paul's speeches; you'll see it all the time; see, for example, his books A Foreign Policy of Freedom and Pillars of Prosperity.
False. The government should protect everybody, and should not be in the business of favoring any special interest group, even one as basic as the family. Not everyone should marry or have children; some may not want them or cannot provide for them, and should not be maltreated because of it. Marriage or any union should be a contract; the government's only role is to provide courts to enforce it.
Overly dramatic, perhaps, but I never consented to any debt: it is aggression visited upon us and our descendants.
Sure—but so does everyone else. For a while, though, we shone the brightest: may we continue to do so.