Article Image
IPFS News Link • Philosophy: Libertarianism

What Is Libertarianism? by David Gordon

• Lew Rockwell
Jacob Huebert's outstanding survey of libertarianism ranks as the best work of its kind since Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty. Huebert navigates successfully difficult waters. Many people, when they first hear of libertarianism, dismiss it as extreme and irresponsible. How can libertarians seriously propose to end public and compulsory education, repeal all regulations on drugs, and consign medicine entirely to the market? Huebert brings to bear a wealth of argument and historical evidence to show that, in these and other instances, libertarians have a convincing case.

6 Comments in Response to

Comment by Nick Saorsa
Entered on:

The simple fact that there are 2 sides to this debate obviously makes it an issue... and that's why it used to divide not only the average Republicrat population, but also the libertarian side of "politics." 

In your example of a "trust", what do you do in the all too used example of incest or rape?  In my eyes, libertarian means that you acknowledge that you have no ownership over another person... I think many people would agree with me. You, and only you, can make the best decisions for yourself. That extends to every person in the world. What gives you, or anyone else in the world, the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body?  FYI, I'm anti-abortion... I think it is horrible, but its not my decision.


Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

Libertarian government may never initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people. But, as Government, they are required to use force at times to quell non-Libertarian dissidents who "initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people."

It is lack of knowledge that keeps non-Government Libertarians from determining when Government Libertarians have turned from libertarianism, and have become dissidents. Once Libertarian people figure this out, they have no problems determining what to do.

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

The abortion point is 1 little point that shows that people who are Libertarian today are often dictators - or something worse - tomorrow.

So you get two jokers of the opposite sex, who make a trust agreement about a third person who they will sponsor in the woman's tummy, and then they turn their backs on the trust they made, call the kid a parasite, and murder him/her?

That's the whole problem with Government! They are a bunch of trust-breakers. Many of them don't even know it.

Of all the different forms of government, Libertarian is the way to be. Its design is in the way people are, and the way they think down deep. The only two things that cause Libertarianism to fail are: 1) lack of knowledge about what is going on, and; 2) an individual Libertarian, out of greed or depravity changes his ways so that he is no longer Libertarian... just like the couple who would become murderers rather than remain Libertarian.

Comment by Nick Saorsa
Entered on:

If you want to talk about abortions, you need to look at it from another angle. At its base level, a pregnancy is another person consuming energy and growing within the mother. That is the classic definition of a parasite. What gives this parasite the right to exist inside someone else? Its not always black and white.

Comment by Larry Stuler
Entered on:

  The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that "all men are created equal".  Under such a tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people.  This is the basis of libertarianism.  The Constitution was adopted to form a gov't that would uphold this tenet.

  The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that "all men are created equal".  The individual American is sovereign, not the federal gov’t.  See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual - United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415.  All of these Supreme Court decisions were rendered before the bankruptcy of the federal gov’t in the 1930’s.  Cites from each of these cases can be found at on my Blog.

  The FED bankrupted the gov't in the 1930's.  This is easily evidenced by the correlation between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):  title 11 USC, "Bankruptcy", is implemented by title 11 CFR, "Federal Elections".  Our vote is simply to elect a bankruptcy "administration". 

  However, bankrupting the federal gov't wasn't enough to make Americans pay the interest on the FED's counterfeit money loans to the gov't.  Sovereignty lies with the individual American, not the federal gov't. as evidenced above by the Supreme Court.

  To get around all of the chains that the Constitution imposes on the federal gov't, Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty.  The "Form SS-5" that an applicant uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form.  After all, only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes.  You know the name of the federal employee - the "taxpayer".  "Taxpayer" is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine - a federal employee.  26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the definition of the term as used throughout the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes.

  The gov’t has been given jurisdiction over its possessions by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution.  By checking the box "U.S. citizen" on the "Form SS-5" the applicant has given the gov't prima facie evidence that he has U.S. possession citizenship.  "U.S. citizen" is also a legal term exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (Puerto Rico is cited in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship.  This regulation then references back to 26 USC sec. 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of the term "citizen" "wherever used in the title".  The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see 26 USC sec. 865(i)(3), 872(b)(7), and 2014(g) for example).  This makes a “U.S. citizen” a foreigner in relation to America.  This is the 14th Amendment citizen.

  The combination of the legal terms "taxpayer" and "U.S. citizen" is known as the "U.S. resident" at 26 USC sec. 865(g).  A "U.S. resident" is a "U.S citizen" living in America - a foreigner.

  So by applying for a S.S.# an American has given away all sovereignty and become a slave to the federal gov't. 

  All of this evidences that the owners of the gov't are quite aware of its limited jurisdiction, but they have absolutely no regard for freedom.

  The federal gov't is legislating today on two main premises - under foreign commerce and that everyone is a federal employee.

  The CFR was created during the bankruptcy proceedings in the mid-1930’s to evidence the correlation of which of the new federal regulatory agencies would be in charge of implementing the regulations under the statutes of the USC. 

  Obviously, federal gov’t regulatory agencies can have no jurisdiction over a sovereign American since “all men are created equal” and the federal gov’t has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  But a “U.S. resident” has no constitutional protections. 

  Since one becomes a “taxpayer” by applying for a S.S.#, that person is now subject to the income tax.

  The income tax was ruled to be constitutional in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions - see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).  These Supreme Court decisions all stated that the gov’t always had the power to tax income and, further, that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal gov’t by the 16th Amendment.  In other words, the income being taxed must be within the limited jurisdiction of the federal gov’t to begin with since no new power was granted to the federal gov’t.  Cites from each of these cases can be found at on my Blog.


  Internal revenue is within the customs.  Customs gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from foreign countries.  Internal revenue gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from the U.S. possessions - thus a source of "internal revenue".  Customs is foreign commerce. 

  The 3 commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 USC, "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure", chapter 85, "District Courts; Jurisdiction".  Section 1336, "Surface Board Transportation Orders", which was renamed from "Interstate Commerce Commission's Orders" in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362, "Indian Tribes", is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1340, "Internal revenue; customs duties", is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  Income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Inheritance tax is the third plank of the Communist Manifesto.  These communistic taxes are only available to the federal gov’t under foreign commerce along with the presumption that the individual is a federal employee.

  The medicine and drug laws (the basis of the FDA) are also internal revenue laws.  The gov’t has gone to great pains in its law writing to hide this fact, but all of it is available at on my Blog where the laws are evidenced.

  The FBI is one of the many federal alphabet agencies created during the 1930’s when the Federal Reserve bankrupted the federal government.  The authority granted to the FBI is cited at title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, section 533, “Investigative and other officials; appointment”, where it directs that the FBI is charged with investigating crimes against the United States, protecting the President, protecting the Attorney General, and other matters under the Department of Justice and the Department of State. The only people over which the FBI has jurisdiction is set out in title 28 U.S.C. section 535, “Investigation of crimes involving Government officials and employees; limitations”, as government officials and employees. There is no section of law that grants the FBI any investigative jurisdiction over sovereign Americans.  An American has given up all sovereignty when applying for a Social Security number by becoming a federal employee and, therefore, subject to the FBI’s investigative powers.     

  Go to where you will find posted evidence of docket tampering by the Appellate Court in order to avoid sitting in judicial review of my brief in which I have challenged the sufficiency of the IRS indictment.  The IRS indictment uses the term “resident” in order to bring in all underlying jurisdiction and all of the actual elements of the charge.

  Go to where you will find cited the actual statutes of the USC that evidence that the US doesn’t have exclusive ownership of the Mississippi River.  This is why BP is in charge of everything in the Gulf spill fiasco.

  The owners of the gov’t set out to control all Americans almost immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence.  Up until that time all gov’t everywhere else was based upon powerful families (monarchs and tyrants) who presumed to own everyone and everything within their jurisdiction.  These families still to this day presume the same thing - they are behind everything that is going on in America.  They had no intent to let the colonies become free.  You must fight for your freedom.  We Americans have been asleep at the switch and have let these families slowly corrupt our law.

  I have evidenced the entire Social Security Scam on my Blog at  

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

"[A]nyone should be free to do anything he or she wants, as long as he or she does not commit acts of force or fraud against any other peaceful person." 

Idealistically this sounds really good. Wow! Freedom to do anything I want that is good and right. 

But, really, it is just as bad as slavery. And here is why. 

DNA testing proves that a newly conceived person is a unique and separate person, right from the moment of conception. Since nobody can determine when the new conception receives its soul, or its spirit, or its own identity (except for its DNA identity), at what point does intentional abortion become murder? Nobody knows for sure! Giving the new person the benefit of the doubt suggests that we should have no abortions because there is the chance that we are murdering! 

The Libertarian "non-aggression principle" says that there should be no abortions for fear of possible aggression against an unborn person! 

Yet, the idea of abortions was not something Government put into place all by itself. Perhaps Roe vs Wade was helped along by a bunch of Government people who were working at tearing the nation down from the inside. But the people wanted it of their own free will. Their Libertarian ideals turned into Tyranny within their own families and their own bodies. 

The point is this. Unrestrained Libertarianism becomes just as bad as unrestrained Democracy, or unrestrained Dictatorship, or unrestrained Kingship, or unrestrained any-other-kind-of-government. 

The second point is that people do not rule over themselves. It looks like people run their governments. But they do not! Not even the ones acting in official Government capacities. 

Why not? Because if people really had the control they wanted, one of the forms of government would have long ago eliminated all the rest. What form of government is that? Think about it. Anarchy! 


Home Grown Food