A discussion on forms libertarianism and what I feel is overlooked by many
I will center this discussion around the United States. A state is defined by it’s authority over territory. If a state does not have authority over a piece of land, then it is by definition not a part of that state. If you are a private land owner in the United States, your ownership is not defined by your own capacity to defend your claim to a piece of land, which could be overwhelmed by force, but by the state’s capacity to back your ownership of a piece of land through its own force. Nobody is born into the United States with the right to exist. In order to exist, you must find a landowner and service their demands in order to be granted the privileged of a space to exist in and other critical resources which come from privately owned land such as shelter, food, etc. The potential to own or inherent land is not guaranteed and therefor does not alter this fundamental truth. It’s fundamentally irrational to say that we are born free and with “liberty” if by default none of us have a right to exist. The nature of our lives is fundamentally dictated by the decisions of the land owning class and whether or not we count ourselves among that class of people. I find it irreconcilable for to that you support a system that is based on the principles of “liberty” if you do not support a state backed right to exist, which would necessitate the right to the equivalent of enough land to live off of. My question is, can anybody put forth an argument which would disprove this view? Can you truly have a coherent and consistent conception of libertarianism which excludes a state backed right to exist? submitted by /u/bingo_bango_zongo [link] [comments]
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society
Posts from the /r/Libertarian subreddit which discusses libertarianism. It’s a libertarian sub, about libertarianism. Even if you are not a libertarian you are welcome to participate in good-faith discussion about libertarianism.