In response to my article from a few days ago titled Anarcho-capitalism in the new media, The Vanguardist posted a reply on his site titled “Libertarianism” and “anarcho-capitalism”. He offers some debate points that are important to look into:

think that Dada is misconstruding what libertarianism means, or, at least, the way I see it. A libertarian is one who denies the validity of aggression as a means to achieve ends. If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, you end up with radical individualism: the voluntary society.

As a true believer in the anarcho-capitalist way, I do understand that libertarianism’s basic tenet is the non-aggression axiom. Walter Block offered some insight back in 2003 in an article at the LRC titled The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism, which looks into some of the points of the axiom.

The Vanguardist continues:

I see no need to group statists with “libertarian” the way that Dada uses it. The term can be semantically abused, yes, but that does not mean that even in today’s loaded terminology, that it is already incompatible with market anarchy.

I agree, but there is a big difference between libertarian (small-L) and Libertarian. Once a libertarian enters politics, it seems that the rules change. I would love some examples of libertarians in office who truly stick to their beliefs of non-aggression and governance with the typical statist desire for control. Even Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t get a 100% liberty rating, but he is a shining example of the rare politician who at least publicly debates the policies he votes yes to.

The AnarCap in me goes even deeper into the axiom, though, but there are many flavors of libertarianism, including the one that Global Unanimocracy Network writer LexNaturalis believes in: Natural Law. AnarCaps generally will repudiate some of the excessive pro-statism they feel is promoted by some Natural Laws advocates, but I feel it is important to taste the various flavors of freedom and debate them personally to see where you stand. Today’s article is by LexNaturalis.

—
Freedom and Power
People rally towards freedom like it’s a beacon of hope. Freedom is an ideal that draws people like flame draws a moth and oftentimes the result is similar. People’s passions are so inflamed that they burn themselves by trying to achieve the noble idea that is freedom. Many people equate freedom with the ability to do what they want and say what they want without any sort of ramifications for their actions. There is no government to beat them down and tell them that they can’t do a certain thing. Some take this to an extreme and argue that anarchy is the freedom; freedom cannot exist without government. Those that argue that extreme position are not misguided; they are completely wrong.

A government that is properly run and properly founded will be the ultimate guarantor of freedom. Freedom is something that can only exist within the bounds of a greater law. Something must guarantee and define freedom; else there is nothing to be free from. Freedom is not something that can just exist. Freedom must be cultivated, established, and protected. Men have, over time, bound together to ensure that their property and their rights under nature are protected while gaining the benefits that a civil society is able to bring them; namely providing goods that they cannot produce on their own.

A proper society has rules that are based upon the same rules that dominate all men. Even in a state of nature the law of nature dominates men. A person who violates the laws of nature is considered to be in a state of war with all other reasonable and rational men. A proper society continues those same rules and the civil society becomes a single entity infused with the rights of the individuals making up the society. A violation against a single person is a violation against the entire society. Ultimately, with or without government, freedom is still a carefully defined and controlled ideal.

Eventually, in a government, there needs to be people that can make decisions on behalf of the entire society. With the power to define what is, or is not, freedom, comes the responsibility to ensure that true freedom is still define and accessible to all members of the society. A legitimate government, with the full backing of the laws of nature, is a far more effective protector of freedom than anarchy. When the concept of government becomes unbearable for a person in search of freedom, that person will never find what they seek. A legitimate government is an extension of man. The destruction of that government will ultimately destroy the man and freedom will never be attained.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.
—
LexNaturalis is a freelance writer and thinker from central Pennsylvania where he lives with his wife. He promotes personal responsibility to augment personal freedom.

Ninos Malek of the Mises Institute has an interesting quick read today: Where There’s Smoke, You Don’t Have to Be. It is a political problem that is dear to my heart — what constitutes “my property” and what constitutes “public property.” I’m not sure when exactly a restaurant became a piece of public land, where property rights and owner’s desires were restricted by what is best for the general population. Maybe it happened during the Civil Rights era, maybe before then. I’ve never been able to track down when exactly the door to your business was controlled by publicans rather than by your own desires.

Malek offers some sagely truth: The only two parties that seem to get mentioned in many of these cases are the smokers and the non-smokers. The former argue that it is their right to smoke and the latter argue that it is their right to have clean air. Who seems to be forgotten are the business owners! This misuse of the word “public” is the main cause.

This is very true. The basic debate for regulation of smoking in restaurants is to look at what is good for the customers and the employees. I don’t run a business only to make my customers happy, I have to focus first and foremost on my bottom line — staying in business. I could cook the best burger in the world, but if it runs me out of business, the burger could be gone forever. That is something all restauranteurs face when they enter that hard market — how to please the customer.

Restaurants for me is a time to socialize. You’ll catch me at the bar stool eating a burger much more often than at a quiet and private table. I’ve formed many casual and serious friendships at one of 5 stools throughout Chicago, and dozens if not hundreds of friendships throughout the world the same way. For me, a good burger, a nice glass of wine and a casual cigarette doesn’t hamper me, and they all aid in the socializing aspect of gaining customers.

Yes, smoking is bad. It can be very detrimental to your health. But for me less than half a year ago, the most detrimental health risk I have ever witnessed occured to me in a restaurant, on so-called public property. The government did not come to my aid, and the restaurant owners who were pro-smoking ban also ignored me. They actually laughed at me.

For years I was skinny and healthy — 140 lbs, 5′7″, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I could run the mile faster than most, and I was happy and focused. Around the age of 24 I settled down, chose a nice gal, and changed my lifestyle. She told me that my lifestyle of burgers, steaks, butter, bacon and the occasional salad were bad for me. My blood pressure told me otherwise, so did my cholesterol level. I switched to a new way of eating: pasta and vegetables and breads and rice — organic, too! In 2 years I gained 50 pounds slowly, almost without realizing it. At 27 I was 180 pounds, and I found out I was unhealthy. My doctor wanted me on blood pressure medication and cholesterol-controlling drugs. He hated them, but he said I was in serious trouble. I told him I was eating healthier than ever, and he said that it could just be age and a hormonal change.

After 6 months of working out (I never did before) and watching every gram of fat, I was 10 pounds heavier. My doctor was seriously scared for me, and asked me to plot any changes in my life in the past 3 years. I was a bit lazier (income was better so I worked less), but overall I didn’t change much. I did quick the casual cigarette, and I did give up unhealthy meats, cheeses, butters and the rest. He flipped. My doc is old, ancient even. He is a big fan of protein and fats over carbs and starches. He told me to immediately go back to the old way of eating. I was afraid, but he said the veggies and pastas were killing me. Less than 18 months later, my blood pressure was in check, my cholesterol was perfect again, and my weight was down to 145. I didn’t take a single pill, and I was eating more “junk” than ever. My body prefers protein over starch. I could never be an organic vegetarian.

Fast forward to 6 months ago when I went to check out a local restaurant run by some tree-huggers that was commercial anti-smoking. I decided to see what it was like, and it was my worst nightmare. Pro-government advocates everywhere, save-the-child signs in the front foyer, and even some public-school teachers were moonlighting for tips. I asked for a big burger and a glass of wine. They laughed. No meat there! I pulled out a pack of my favorite cigarettes, the Nat Sherman Black and Golds. As I was about to light up, they jumped on me like hawks to a mouse: “there’s no smoking in here!”

I asked why. They said it was unhealthy for all around me. I explained that vegetables and starches were unhealthy to all around me as I looked around and noticed that 80% of the customers were overweight, if not obese. They laughed. I explained that if they had the right to clean air, I had the right to clean arteries. More laughter, Santa Claus like with bellies bouncing. I explained that if I was to smoke and get ill, they would not have to pay for me in the future, I was financially stable and insured. I explained that if they kept eating the organic junk food they ate, I would have to pay for them since most of them were unemployed and uninsured — all that time spent at riots and protests meant time lost focusing on their work skills, I guess.

They didn’t listen. They told me that the restaurant was their property, and they had a right to sell what they wanted to.

That was the last word, and I gave it to them. I winked on my way out, knowing fully that I had won since they had paraphrased the line that freedom lovers have said since the beginning: don’t tread on me. Some old people know it better: Get. Off. My. Land.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.