It's about the non-aggression principle, a.k.a. NAP or the non-innitiation of force. Everything else is argumented from the non-innitation of force. Murray Rothbard argued against the state because it is a compulsory monopoly of force.nitz wrote:No first come the liberty to live a free life without constant from the government - key gaol. and then without the need for force. "as you please" is merely the wording, perhaps not the best wording.Genevieve wrote:The libertarian view isn't 'do as you please', it's 'don't innitiate force against others'. You can still meddle with other people and be active in social change for as long as you don't force it on other people coercively. Campaign, inform, be active, boycott all you want. :v
Assuming the N.A.P. wing of libertarianism.
Can't find it right now, but I've been looking for an episode of Thomas E. Woods' radio show (an anarcho-capitalist scholar and historian, associated with the Mises Institute, an organization founded to educate on Austrian School economics), where he explains that that's all libertarianism is, 'don't innitiate force against other'. I may try again later.
All modern libertarians would object to this because taxation is a form of government sanctioned theft and theft is an innitiation of force. I'm a voluntaryist and at 25, I've been libertarian since I was 18.nitz wrote:Most if not all classical liberteistm would object to this because it is a restriction. Morden theist… 50/50 its not the end of the world
You may be mixing up classical liberalism and libertarianism, which are two different animals. Murray Rothbard synthesized modern libertarianism by taking one aspect (not the whole thing) from Ayn Rand's Obectivist philosophy, namely the non-aggression principle and melded it with Austrian School economics and influences from American individualist anarchism, which he believed were all compatible with NAP (and he's right).
Liberalism is about liberty, libertarianism is about the non-innitiation of force.

