My post below describes the beginnings of a discussion over at Occam’s Carbuncle about the nature of libertarianism. Greg* has followed my response with the following:

Thank you for your post. It clarifies things a lot. For me though, it leaves me with the impression that libertarians want to be left alone by the state except when they or their property are in jeopardy. Now that sounds good, in theory, but I am not sure I would like to live in a society (if in fact we could even call it such)like that. I think you would find that it would quickly sort itself out into “winners” and “losers”, with the winners locked in gated compounds, afraid to come out for fear of the losers (or worse still using state force to hold onto their positions). In fact, it sounds very much like a third world country, like El Salvador or Honduras. If I am wrong in this, please let me know.

I am greatly encouraged by the civil turn this discussion has taken, and frankly the thanks for that go to Greg. His courtesy is a model for how different sides of an argument should behave (are you listening, Norman?). In view of the comment-length restrictions chez Occam, my reponse is here:

Greg – I appreciate your comment. Fundamentally, the answer to your question about being left alone is “yes”–I think most libertarians would prefer to be left alone by the State unless they or theirs are in jeopardy. This rests on two foundations:

(1) The principle of self-ownership: I am capable of making my own decisions, and living my own life. I am also capable of identifying my own goals, and supporting myself.

(2) “The State”, in a democracy, amounts to “a large bunch of other people who live near me” (See Jay Jardine’s excellent comment at Occam’s site). This group has no special claim to wisdom or justice that I lack. There is no moral justification for allowing this group to make decisions for me (and again, we are excepting the limitations on my behaviour which proscribe threats against other people).

I do not share the worry you express, namely that absent the State we would live in a Dickensian world of palaces and slums. People are generally generous and helpful, not to say charitable, and I fully expect that we would each continue to care for our neighbours just as much even if a formal welfare state did not exist.

The reasons why Canadians are not currently engaged in a class war of gated compounds and tuberculous hovels is NOT because we have medicare and a minimum wage. It’s because (a) people are generally not heartless b*st*rds, and (b) capitalism truly does lift (almost) all boats.

If I can turn the question around to you: Statists believe that people in a group are kind, charitable, and have the right to make decisions for other people… but individually, these same people are pinched dark-hearted misers aching to steal the last crust of bread from one another. Does this really make sense? Can charity and neighbourliness truly only exist if we democratically force ourselves to behave that way?

I was about to say “can charity only exist at the point of a gun”, but that’s the kind of angry libertarian talk that only plays well for the home team!

Best wishes Greg.

*UPDATE: I am reliably informed by Damian Brooks that Greg is the author of Sinister Thoughts, a blog which from my initial perusal won’t be appearing on my list of Ideological Brethren anytime soon! ;-)

But it’s well-written, and if I can stomach it I might put him on my list as my Token LeftWing Nutjob, to balance the 37 RightWing Nutjobs I currently link to…