Liberty minus Objectivity = Anything goes (The Origin of the libertarian movement and Party Part 2)

Liberty minus objectivity means that one is living in a world of subjectivist soup. A world where there is no good and evil, but, only disagreements. Which means that there is no way to rationally defend the NAP and the core credo of libertarianism. From this one sees it is OK for our next topic of the libertarian movement. Which is that poison called anarchocapitalism and subjugation of individual rights to the whims of the individual.

One of the founders of the libertarian movement was one Murray Rothbard whom has been nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He was the founder of the anarchocapitalism movement for a stateless society within the Libertarian Party. Which says we should have private competing prisons, courts and a completely privatized military or no standing military at all. Which somehow without a government will just all agree to the Non-Initiation of Coercion Principle. Without any need of oversight and external governmental laws.

Goodbye to any rule of law; goodbye to due process and innocence until proven guilty. Goodbye to any objective law code that can be enforced with any sort of oversight from an external entity. Goodbye for a way to "make" people act according to the NAP and not harm others or their property. It is not optional to not harm others or their property. It is not optional for the government bodies within any given to defend individual rights. NFIP is all about defending individual rights and there is no way to guarantee this in an anarchocapitalist world.

While Rothbard admitted that all privatized retaliatory force would need to follow among the NIFP/NAP/NCP/libertarian legal code to work. So, how on Earth does he plan on enforcing the NAP over these privatized entities without an overarching governing body of oversight on them? The reason Capitalism works is because there is an external force "limited government" that is acting as a night watchman State to make sure people are keeping peaceful. This is a way of making sure we can show the Angels of Our Better Nature.

One would think that a person whom took the libertarian credo/legal code seriously they could never be anarchists. After all how do you enforce the Non-coercion (Axiom) Principle without a body or bodies with the ability and right to use retaliatory force in defense of that (Axiom) Principle? After all it is an Axiom to Libertarians or at least the Right-Libertarians claim. Since it is an Axiom it should be just be able to be followed and accepted as taken. If not than it needs to be enforced and made to be followed by others.

Rothbard admitted that having the market make laws was going too far, but, then where did the laws come from? Where did this mysterious libertarian legal code come from? If you make a stateless society only a market exists and thus the market is making the laws. How do you stop the market from making laws that infringe peoples individual rights? In fact, how can you define individual rights in an anarchy? The truth is you cannot in a stateless society enforce the Non initiation of coercion axiom.

Without a "limited government" you cannot enforce the Non-Coercion Axiom even by anarchocapitalisms own standards. If you think rationally and reasonably you reach a minarchism as necessary to defend the vary things anarchocapitalism wants. Private prisons? Maybe. Private Courts and Arbitration? Sure it happens now too! Privatized military? Maybe. However, all of that requires an objective rule of law and not of subjective whim. In order for having a Private Sector in defense you need an overarching body of objective law (based on protecting individual rights) which enforces the non-coercion axiom. In other words you need a "limited" government.

However, you need to be embracing reason, rationality and logical consistency to realize you need a limited government. Even if only limited to an overarching body of libertarian rule of Non-coercion Axiom based laws. Monocentirc laws protected by force is needed. As soon as you have a centralized body of entities which enforce on all a Monocentric rule of law you are in the beginnings of a minarchists limited state. A limited government is the means of retaliatory force being put into objective hands. To keep things a rule of law and not a rule of mob justice.

This is the problem with libertarianism the lack of embracing reason, rationality and logical consistency as a virtue. As the main virtue to figuring out what is real or not real. To figure out what is A and what is B which objectivism requires. You need to live by reality to be an objectivist, but, you can be a libertarian and be a religionist, an insane believer in woo or a Ghost Hunter. Reason is not needed to be a libertarian and it can be taken on faith. Which means it is susceptible to unreason and the unreal. It means it is open to delusions and dangerous. It is so "open minded" that its brains (those whom do value reason as necessary) have fallen out.

Liberty minus Objectivity is not even a guarantee of a philosophy of liberty/freedom. It is not a guarantee of individual rights and not even a guarantee of libertarian's own Non-Coercion Axiom. Liberty minus objectivity is not a stable world view. It is not a stable state of life in general. It is also not a guarantor of Capitalism not being sabotaged by evil forces of collectivism. Liberty requires monocentric laws and an organized/centralized government body of rule of law not of men. Liberty requires a powerful defense of individualism on an institutional level. A=A Liberty requires limited governance.