the salt makers

I think Hampton hit the nail on the head when he mentioned a plethora of times that during the course of your argumentation you simply state your preference and nothing else. what I'm getting at is that your axioms are built on a weak foundation of assumptions. At first I simply conceded your "axioms" as truths but disagreed on your other libertarian views. After doing some research, however, I've realized how incredibly UNfounded these libertarian axioms really are.

I quote the quintessential Libertarian, Murray Rothbard (who is considered the father of modern libertarianism), on the axioms: "…the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with."

I would like to point out that while you have stated your axioms numerous times and explained what they entailed, you have not ONCE told us WHY the axioms exist. Who derived these and from what? The best that I can muster from your emails is that these axioms are simply "self-evident." Well, to quote my good friend Ethan, "Nothing is self-evident."

Can you prove to me, other than stating it that it is so, that every man is a self-owner? To quote Dr. Timothy Terrell, "As the libertarian theory of property rights is essentially faith-based, it is no more "objective" than any other faith-based property rights theory. The Christian may assert that God is the creator, and therefore the owner, of all men." The difference, I suppose, is that Christians have faith in God due to biblical revelations while libertarians, on the other hand, simply hope that their readers will share their faith on the validity of the axioms. I can't accept your first axiom if I do not accept your faith in them.

Now, do not mistake this for me saying that I disagree that "no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person." I whole-heartedly agree. What I disagree with is that having "jurisdiction" over something by no standards implies ownership. I have full jurisdiction over my child, but do I own him? The libertarian would say no. I have jurisdiction over the company I run, but do I own it? No, I'm just a CEO. Do I own my neighbor's lawnmower because I control it completely right now? No. As you can see this "self-ownership" reasoning is shaky at best.

What the hell does "mixes with his labor mean?" Alright, I'm getting of track, but it's good to note how incredibly vague this statement is. Playing on the example Hampton put forth, if I land on the moon first can I land my flag pole in the ground and claim all of the land?? The libertarian would say no. But is one acre reasonable? I think the Libertarian would say yes, but ultimately it doesn't matter what your decision is. If they can't claim the entire planet (even though your own axiom states "justly owns whatever previously unowned resources) any line you draw will be arbitrary. My point is that these axioms are not axioms at all. When things get sticky and libertarians are put in sketchy ethical situations (or property situations as seen above) where the axioms cannot clearly and definitively show the right path then they revert back to personal preference. Well, one acre sounds reasonable, but the entire planet is not. That is not axiomatic. That is personal preference changing with each libertarian one encounters. I spoke to you last night and I asked you these same questions and you responded with "depends." Does a physics professor say "depends" when approached with a physics problem? NO! Because he works with TRUE axioms! (You said a man owns his property if he "homesteads it." What does homestead mean? If I till 10 inches, does that count? what about 10 feet?) I think what I'm getting at is that you can't have axioms to rule human affairs. It has never worked and it never will work. Here I'm basically turning your Lew Rockwell argument on you except in a reasonable manner...a manner he did not utilize.(Note, if you want someone who actually tried to defend these axioms and prove they existed look up Hoppe. His reasoning is equally, if not more, weak than simply stating the axioms are true. I find that my arguments have addressed his very bold assumptions.)

The fact that we can have two libertarians who derive every decision from the non-aggression axiom and come up with different conclusions for a given situation also proves that these are not "axioms." They are personal preference.

I would also like to note the ridiculous statement you sent to Hampton about how these axioms are more, not less, affirmed than the laws of physics. First of all, revert to my first argument that SAYING SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Why are they more affirmed? How? Who decided? No matter how many equations, numbers, or situations you throw at a physicist they can answer DEFINITIVELY a physics problem and the correct answer will always be the same. The laws of physics are universal my dear Nick; your "axioms" are not.

Furthermore, I'm sure a common libertarian defence is something like, "these are such ridiculous situations. These would never happen and the axioms work almost completely in normal situations." Maybe, but that's still not an axiom! If your axioms are more sound than the laws of physics, and if a physicist can show the speed of a watermelon being dropped from the empire state building by Condoleeza Rice at exactly 4 seconds after the initial release, then you can show us just how axiomatic your axioms really are in an equally crazy situation....or can you? Axioms don't change according to situations

Once again, our good friend Murray Rothbard, "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self ownership.
This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body,
that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not
want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."

Now, it's important to note that he is implying no restrictions on abortion, thus the woman would be allowed one any time prior to birth, IE., at 8 3/4 months. I'm not going to get into the obvious moral implications here and how ridiculous this sounds on really every level, but I would like to apply his reasoning universally. I have absolute dominion over my house. Killing my mother-in-law should not be seen as "murder" of a living person, but as an expulsion of an unwanted invader from my domain. I mean she is a parasite...she takes my money, my time, and my food, right? No, not right. This reasoning is absurd. No matter if something is looked upon as X, it doesn't change the fact that it is Y. In other words, killing a fetus 8 1/2 months into the pregnancy is always murder, regardless of how you choose to perceive it. I'd also like to point out that it's more like asking the next door neighbor to come to your house (they may or may not come) and then killing them and claiming them an "invader." IE, they had sex willingly (we're assuming...rapes are different) and she may or may not have a child. Once again, inconsistent.

Furthermore, let's discuss libertarian views on children. Rothbard claimed that the child in the womb is in complete jurisdiction of the mother, being in her body and all. So does that mean that I am in complete jurisdiction of my mother right now because I was that way in her womb? When am I no longer in her jurisdiction? At what age? At what maturity level? What about a retarded child? Are they considered full fledged human beings with all human rights? When does the maternal obligation run out for them? Can you axiomatically show me the truth, Like physics can show me the laws of gravity even though they are LESS founded than your "axioms?" Undoubtedly, your decisions will be based primarily upon personal preference in this arena.

Now, in Rothbard's defense he DOES mention that he is not trying to establish "the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion."

This is all fine and dandy but it's not so easy to separate what is moral from what should be legal. Certainly not all sins should be crimes, but it would be absurd to say that no sins should be crimes. I've touched on this in earlier email's, but the problem is that speaking of something only in the legal sense can not show you how to be ethical or virtuous, as the above abortion example shows. I would also venture to say that creating a society where right and wrong is determined only legally has severe moral implications for that society. I would say it's a pretty universally accepted fact that partial birth abortion is murder (no matter how you "perceive" it). And while it shouldn't be illegal only on the grounds that it is immoral, it certainly should be considered in the decision making process. While I would agree that you cannot legislate morals you CAN legislate to encourage good and decent behavior, IE. public nudity, public intoxication, public fornication, tax breaks for married couples, etc. The list goes on. In a libertarian society this would not be possible, or even desirable.

I would like to quote my good friend Russell Kirk on this matter:

"What do I mean when I say that today's American libertarians are metaphysically mad, and so repellent? Why, the dogmas of libertarianism have been refuted so often, both dialectically and by the hard knocks of experience, that it would be dull work to rehearse here the whole tale of folly. Space wanting, I set down below merely a few of the more conspicuous insufficiencies of libertarianism as a credible moral and political mode of belief. It is such differences from the conservatives' understanding of the human condition that make inconceivable any coalition of conservatives and libertarians.

The great line of division in modern politics—as Eric Voegelin reminds us-is not between totalitarians on the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other; rather, it lies between all those who believe in some sort of transcendent moral order, on one side, and on the other side all those who take this ephemeral existence of ours for the be-all and end-all-to be devoted chiefly to producing and consuming. In this discrimination between the sheep and the goats, the libertarians must be classified with the goats-that is, as utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct. In effect, they are converts to Marx's dialectical materialism; so conservatives draw back from them on the first principle of all."

This issue has reminded me of something Dick said in an earlier email:
"As a Christian, I fully intend to teach my children of their moral obligation to help others. I just won't be teaching them that others somehow have a legal right to their persons or property. I would agree that only an uncaring scumbag would refuse to offer any charitable support to anyone, but being such a scumbag, while undesirable, ought not be a crime. That is, an ungenerous person is immoral, but not necessarily criminal."

I absolutely agree with him that this is the best way to raise children in our country. The problem is that Dick is unique in his libertarian/christian outlooks. Just like Rothbard pointed out libertarians teach what should be right legally, not morally, but it is not so easy (or should be) to separate them. To found a political philosophy that doesn't even take morals or virtuous conduct into account is simply preposterous because it could never function. You might say (and have) that you WOULD teach your children virtues, but when your political philosophy doesn't even touch them it's left up to personal preference whether you teach your children that. While you still have that choice today(to teach them or not), prevailing conservative philosophy, for example, very much considers morals and virtuous character in their political philosophy and this will produce many more citizens with a moral obligation to others. I by no means think that morals obligations should be legal obligations but to not have the former would surely be disastrous and you don't even speak of it (neither does Rothbard, for that matter).

I'm interested to know what Dick thinks about Rothbard's abortion interpretation on abortion. If he decided to side with libertarians then he is betraying his christian beliefs as I can't think of any christian denomination that supports partial birth abortion. If he decides to side with Christians he is defying this interpretation of the "axiom" of truth that had been laid before us by Rothbard.

Suffice it to say that while your quote that we "can't have controlled experiments on human affairs" is obviously wrong, what is correct is to say that you cannot have one universal axiom to rule all of human affairs because they are exactly that: human and completely circumstantial. From all of your emails you have hardly shown that your axioms work at all, let alone universally.

I'd like to end the email with, what I think is such a perfect quote from Kirk:

"When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp."

Good luck on your libertarian escapades. I look forward to your response.

- Written by Zach Sonnier
6.16.06