"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

The Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), or the Non-Aggression Principle, is the defining rule of peaceful coexistance.  This version was composed by L. Neil Smith, who says: "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." 

This is the basis of a freedom philosophy which respects the rights of everyone.  It applies to everyone equally.  The basic idea has been expressed throughout human cultures across the globe and in every era.  The "Golden Rule"* and "The Wiccan Rede"** are just two examples among many.  Each culture has its own way of saying basically the same thing. Even very young children have an innate understanding of this one "law of humanity".  In any dispute they always cry "He started it!"  I think that this idea is part of what makes us philosophically human.

Notice, too, that advocating the initiation of force against others is understood to be wrong.  You can not threaten to use force to coerce someone’s compliance.  Prohibited as well is using thugs (such as government agents) to impose your coercive desires upon the unwilling, yet otherwise peaceful, person.

This is how you show your respect for the self-ownership of those around you. If you follow this principle, you may not be a perfect person, but you would probably be a pretty good neighbor. You would definitely be a good example of true libertarianism….Continued:

http://www.kentforliberty.com/zap.html

So, what do you think? Feel free to leave some comments below!

This is part of a discussion taking place on the Broward Libertarian People’s yahoo group. If you’d like to join in, head on over to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LP-Broward/

And sign up!

Mornin’ Jim,

There are a lot of questions and I think I need a better way to deal with them all. I’m thinking about answering some of them on my blog.

Voting for someone who is a libertarian in another party is understandable, though it’s not a good strategy for advancing liberty. Ron Paul has been at it for 30+ years and only recently has had some success. Had he done what I now advocate I don’t think we’d be in this position.

In addition, he has helped reinforce the mistaken idea that the GOP stands for smaller government. That is perhaps the most damaging thing.

Barr was a mistake from the beginning. He’s not a libertarian at all and was a horrible candidate as well. He’s exactly the type of candidate we should be guarding against and yet people keep advocating that we run candidates like him. Why do people want to keep making the same mistakes over and over again?

I was arguing that we (as in the LP) should not run statists just to "do something" or "get on the scoreboard" or something meaningless like that.

The LP ought to stand for something – libertarianism. We don’t need to sell out. It doesn’t work, has never worked, and will never work. It only means more problems later on.

The ideology is not the reason we aren’t doing better. The lack of focus and the lack of leadership is.

Right now the answer is in building a trained cadre, not in running candidates that are doomed from the start. That should have been our priority from the start.

For example, given its population Broward should have a cadre of maybe 250-500 people. With that we could not only run candidates but elect people as well.

Getting and training those 250 people should be our focus, and nothing else.

For example, one of the possible candidates is speaking at the meeting on Wednesday, right? The BLP should be able to have at least 100 people come out and see him speak. We should have a list of 10,000+ names right now (that have been invited to see him speak). But we don’t. And we won’t get anywhere near 100 people to come to the meeting. We’ll get 10 if we’re lucky.

I’m also going to disagree with you slightly about another related point. I don’t think we have to actually elect people (though that would be best). We just have to get big enough where we can’t be stopped and we look like a threat. Right now, we’re not really on their radar, so we’re pretty much meaningless.

Let me know if that answers your questions.

In Liberty,

sean

Well, certainly not this guy:

 Florida Candidate For Mayor Wants 1,000-Strong Youth Spy Force

Falconer proposes swarms of citizen informers casing neighborhoods looking for suspicious behavior…"Matthew Falconer, who professes to be a Libertarian, has been handing out a business card to potential voters outlining his platform." You can read more here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/florida-candidate-for-mayor-wants-1000-strong-youth-spy-force.html

I really wish that people who are not libertarians would stop calling themselves libertarians! Just go find another word to describe yourself. And if you’re not a libertarian – go find another party.

This is the definition that the real Broward LP uses -

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap"):
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. 

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. 
— L. Neil Smith, Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" source -http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

And it works. It separates the posers from the libertarians.

Comments? Questions? Feel free to leave a comment. You could be a winner!
 

The Marion County Libertarians will be holding their monthly meetings on the 4th Tuesday of each month.

The first one is scheduled for August 25 at 6:30 PM. It’s going to be at Panera Bakery, at 2370 SW College Road.

Please call 352-895-4135 for information or to RSVP.

Freedom Spoken Here.
Also Good Food, Friendship, And Fun

Crazy for liberty?
Then come to the BLP Social Hour –
The best therapy for those who have discovered
they are stuck in the matrix and want to Party their way out.

There’s no obligation and we’ll throw in a great time (and maybe even some free chips and salsa) if you accept our invitation.

Let’s face it – meeting people who understand the language of liberty, people who can talk about freedom, Jefferson, Rand, Rothbard and Mises, is difficult; especially in south Florida.

And it’s even harder if you want to enjoy good food, drink, merriment and friendly conversation at the same time.

Lucky for you, the Libertarian Party of Broward County has solved that problem. In fact, we’ve been having a great time for the last few years, and we want you to join us.

Announcing….

The Libertarian Party of Broward County’s Social Hour

“the Party that will change your world”

This is an event where we get together to speak our minds and enjoy the friendship of like minded individuals with the desire to affect change and YOU are invited. Here’s what you need to know:

WHAT: Libertarian Party of Broward County’s Social Hour
WHERE: Tijuana Taxi (corner of University Drive and Griffin Road)
Nice atmosphere, drinks, good eats http://www.tijuanataxico.com/
WHEN: The second Saturday after our Business Meetings
Business meetings are held on second Wed of each month
Next Social Hour Meeting Aug 22, 2009
TIME: 6:00 PM
HOW: Look for the BLP logo – we will be there

Libertarian Party Founder David F. Nolan expresses his concerns about the current direction of the LP in a letter distributed to the members of the Libertarian National Committee.by David F. Nolan

The following letter has been distributed to the members of the Libertarian National Committee, which is meeting in St. Louis the weekend of July 18-19.

Some excerpts:

"…that it pays to be bold. Notice that the grassroots uprising sparked by the Ron Paul campaign calls itself the Ron Paul REVOLUTION. Not the "Ron Paul gradual reform movement." They’re calling for ending the Federal personal income tax, not just mouthing empty platitudes about "lower taxes" or "more freedom." (Compared to what? What we have now? Obama’s proposals?) And they are gaining adherents far more rapidly than the Libertarian Party is; the C4L currently has five to ten times as many members as we do!…"

"As I see it, the Libertarian Party has gone far astray from its original mission. Somewhere along the way, our commitment to being The Party of Principle was replaced by a shallow, opportunistic goal of "winning elections now" — any election, anywhere. Principles be damned, according to the proponents of this vision. We should back off from "scary" positions, tone down our rhetoric, find out "what voters want," and tailor our message to what they want to hear."

"I would be hard-put to come up with a statement more antithetical to our beliefs and purpose. Just for starters, "winning" is not a principle at all; it might be a goal, or a strategy for achieving our goals, but it’s not a principle. And if it were, it’s not our principle. This is pure opportunistic rubbish — exactly what you’d expect from a Republican or Democratic party hack."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6640.html

Visit the link and discuss below.

Sometimes I almost cringe when someone starts talking about the "voters." As if that word had any real meaning. It doesn’t, and trying to appeal to the "voters" is a waste of time, IMHO.

Why? Well, read this article and come back and ask me:

Why Preaching to the Choir is a Good Thing

http://www.copyblogger.com/preaching-to-the-choir/

Topics covered:

Too Many Marketers are Like Panhandlers

Why Evangelism Doesn’t Work

The alternative to evangelism is recruitment.

“Come if You’re a Good Fit” Instead of “Come As You Are”

—–

If you read and understand that blog post you’ll see why BLISS is a good idea…why the social hour is important…and why "Build the LP" is important. Oh yeah, and LATS too.

I am waiting for your comments…sean

I had some dealings with e-gold a few years back. They foolishly decided not to list one of my old sites on their site. It was a strange decision too as my old site was one of the only places regular people could actually earn e-gold (by writing articles). So, yes, perhaps I am still bitter.

I still like the idea of digital gold though. Like the Liberty Dollar people, they should be free to run their own businesses as they want to.

Here’s the article. Please leave comments below!

Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold

"MELBOURNE, Florida — In a sparsely decorated office suite two floors above a neighborhood of strip malls and car dealerships, former oncologist Douglas Jackson is struggling to resuscitate a dying dream.

Jackson, 51, is the maverick founder of E-Gold, the first-of-its-kind digital currency that was once used by millions of people in more than a hundred countries. Today the currency is barely alive.

Stacks of cardboard evidence boxes in the office, marked “U.S. Secret Service,” help explain why, as does the pager-sized black box strapped to Jackson’s ankle: a tracking device that tells his probation officer whenever he leaves or enters his home.

“It’s supposed to be jail,” he says. “Only it’s self-administered.”

Jackson, whose six-month house arrest ends this month, recently met with Wired.com for his first in-depth interview since pleading guilty last year to money laundering-related crimes, and to operating an unlicensed money transmitting service. His tale is one of countless upstarts and entrepreneurs who approached the internet with big dreams, only to be chastened by sobering realities. But his rise and fall also offers a unique glimpse at the web’s frontier halcyon days, and the wilderness landscape that still covers much of the unregulated and un-policed web, where fraud artists prospect for riches alongside pioneers, and sometimes stake, and win, a claim on their territory…."

Continued:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/e-gold/

So, what do you think?

This originally appeared in the September 2005 issue of The Free Market

There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, and they owe a great debt to the work of Ludwig von Mises. His top American student was Murray N. Rothbard, and Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged. The reason is that Rothbard forged a blend between Austrian economics and natural-rights political theory of the old liberal school to create a modern libertarianism, a political-economic-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is both unworkable and immoral.

“Mr. Libertarian,” Murray N. Rothbard was called, and “The State’s Greatest Living Enemy.” He remains so. Yes, he had many predecessors from which he drew: the whole of the classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these pieces together into a unified system that seems inevitable once it has been defined and defended. The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership, strict property rights, free markets, antistate in every conceivable respect) but the implications are earthshaking.

Once you are exposed to the complete picture – and For A New Liberty has been the leading means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century – you cannot forget it. This book has been out of print but will appear early next year from the Mises Institute. More than any other of his works, this book explains why Rothbard seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his death) and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies on the left, right, and center.

Quite simply, the science of liberty that he brought into clear relief is as brilliant in the hopes it creates for a free world as it is unforgiving of error. Its logical and moral consistency, together with its empirical-explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any intellectual vision that sets out to use the state to refashion the world according to some pre-programmed plan. And to the same extent it impresses the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.

Rothbard set out to write this book soon after he got a call from Tom Mandel, an editor at Macmillan who had seen an op-ed by Rothbard in the New York Times in the spring of 1971. It was the only commission Rothbard ever received from a commercial publishing house. Looking at the original manuscript, which is so consistent in its typeface and nearly complete after its first draft, it does seem that it was nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting, and energetic.

It is also striking how Rothbard chose to pull no punches in his argument. Other intellectuals on the receiving end of such an invitation might have tended to water down the argument to make it more palatable. Why, for example, make a full case for no state when a case for limited government might bring more people into the movement? Why condemn the US? Why go into such depth about privatizing courts and roads and water? Why enter into the sticky area of regulation of consumption and of personal morality? And why go into such detail about monetary affairs and central banking and the like?

Trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the audience was just not Rothbard’s way. He knew that he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to present the full package of libertarianism in all its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we read here: not just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.

Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, that is not what we get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as school vouchers or the privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead, he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write the Libertarian Manifesto have not stood the test of time, and yet this book remains in high demand.

Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism that have appeared in the intervening years that covered philosophy alone, politics alone, economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had the mastery of all these areas to be able to write an integrated manifesto – one that has never been displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own generation.

In addition, some introductions of this sort are written to give the reader an easier passage into a difficult book, but that is not the case here. He never talks down to his readers but always with clarity. Every page exudes energy and passion that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all those years ago.

The book is still regarded as “dangerous” precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way again. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classical statement that I predict will be read for generations to come.

Books by Lew Rockwell

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author, most recently, of The Left, The Right, and The State.

From:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/uncompromising-rothbard-fm0905.html