posted June 16, 2006 02:19 PM              

I also believe that we must commit ourselves to defending the rights of others around the world, unlike many libertarians that only support defending the rights of people in their own country. This extends to use of force in situations where it's the best solution, including situations where dictators refuse to open up their countries or where mass murder, genocide or crimes against humanity are taking place. I also support defending the rights of persons not able to speak for themselves, including the unborn and the physically disabled. Natural rights extend to all persons, regardless of geography, age or ability, and it's incredibly statist and conservative to only care about the rights of some people because we drew arbitrary distinctions like trimesters or countries.

Philosophically, it means a moral belief that every individual ought to live by the same basic rules but otherwise be free to do as he wishes; it means that the initiation of force or fraud is morally illegitimate whether it comes from a government, a business, a bowling club or you alone. This is the essence of libertarianism in general, to remove the extra-human privileges that some people have bestowed on themselves simply because they have a flag and call themselves 'The Government.' States should be bound by the same basic moral rules as individuals.

Neolibertarianism, however, means making a political commitment to combat the initation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.

Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neolibertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.

Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with near-infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an agressor, even if you aren't the victim.

Some people have equated neolibertarianism with conservatism, pragmatism and Hobbesianism. I could scarcely disagree more; neolibertarianism is liberalist, idealist and Lockean.

By liberalist, I mean ascribing to an ideology based on human liberty, human goodness, and market commerce. I believe that people are basically good, I believe that freedom is inseparable from a just and lasting peace and I think markets are a wonderful route to prosperity and understanding.

By idealist, I mean that a neo-libertarian view embraces an objective, universal, Stoic perspective of life and existence, and that ethical behavior is inherently valuable.

By Lockean, I mean I do not accept the Hobbesian view that the world is a cold, hellish, anarchical place that only a master despot can tame. I subscribe to the view, espoused by Locke, that people are basically good and that freedom and representative institutions are the best normal route for governing human interactions. However, also like Locke, I think that some people are cruel, evil and intolerably unjust, and that they can and ought to be captured, arrested or killed for their crimes. Idealism by no means equates to pacifism.

I have a great deal of practical and policy-based arguments for why my favored solutions to various problems will work. The measure of an ideology, however, is its philosophy. An ideology without solid philosophical underpinnings is unpredictable and might vacillate between pacifism and fascism, socialism and conservatism. I hope that I've explained somewhat my political philosophy and the political philosophy I see propelling neo-libertarian thought in general.