Murray Rothbard on how libertarians view war

Libertarians favor liberty as a natural human right, and advocate it not only for Americans but for all peoples.  In a purely libertarian world, therefore, there would be no “foreign policy” because there would be no States, no governments with a monopoly of coercion over particular territorial areas.  But since we live in a world of nation-states.  And since this system is hardly likely to disappear in the near future, what is the attitude of libertarians toward foreign policy in the current State-ridden world? 

Pending the dissolution of States, libertarians desire to limit, to whittle down, the area of governmental power in all directions and as much as possible… 

Specifically, the entire land area of the world is now parcelled out among various States, and each land area is ruled by a central government with monopoly of violence over that area.  In relations between States, then, the libertarian goal is to keep each of those States from extending their violence to other countries, so that each State’s tyranny is at least confined to its own bailiwick.  For the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of State aggression against all private individuals.  The only way to do this, in international affairs, is for the people of each country to pressure their own State to confine its activities to the area it monopolizes and not to attack other States or aggress against their subjects.  In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible.  And this means the total avoidance of war.  The people under each State should pressure “their respective States not to attack one another, or, if a conflict should break out, to withdraw from it as quickly as physically possible.

~ Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, "War and Foreign Policy," pp. 331-332

1919 (published posthumously)

Walter Block on prostitution

Some of these things should be stigmatized.  We shouldn't use heroin.  Heroin is not good.  I'm against using heroin and I'm against prostitution.  Look, I have a wife.  I have a mother; well, she's passed away.  I have a sister, a daughter.  I wouldn't want any of them to be a prostitute.  I think prostitution is very bad.  So I want it to remain stigmatized.  I want young people to be told, "Don't engage in prostitution.  There are better ways of relating with each other."  I'm sort of conservative in that way.  So I don't really want to destigmatize it, but I don't want prostitutes to be arrested, because that would violate the non-aggression principle.  I want to promote liberty.

~ Walter Block, "Defending the Undefendable - Walter Block Returns!," interview with The Politicrat, 12:30 mark

Walter Block on morality vs. the marketplace

This book does not claim that the marketplace is a moral economic institution.  True, the profit and loss business system has brought mankind a plethora of consumer goods and services unkown in the entire history of the world.  These benefits are the envy of all peoples not fortunate enough to live under its banner.  Given the tastes, desires, preferences of the ultimate consumer, the market is the best means known to man for providing for his satisfaction.

But the marketplace also produces goods and services – such as gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) alcohol, cigarettes, swinger’s clubs, suicide abetment – whose moral status is, to say the least, highly questionable and in many cases highly immoral. The free enterprise system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one. Rather, as a means of consumer satisfaction, it can only be as moral as are the goals of the market participants themselves. Since these vary widely, all the way from the completely depraved and immoral to the entirely legitimate, the market must be seen as amoral – neither moral nor immoral.

The market in other words is like fire, or a gun, or a knife or a typewriter: a splendidly efficient means towards both good and bad ends.  Through free enterprise we are capable of achieving virtuous actions, but also their very opposite as well.

How, then, can we defend the immoral activitys of some market actors?  This stems from the philosophy of libertarianism, which is limited to analyzing one single problem.  It asks, under what conditions is violence justified?  And it answers, violence is justified only for purposes of defense, or in response to prior aggression, or in retaliation against it.  This means, among other things, that government is not justified in fining, punishing, incarcerating, imposing death penalties on people who act in an immoral manner - as long as they refrain from threatening or initiating physical violence on the persons or property of others.  Libertarianism, then, is not a philosophy of life.  It does not presume to indicate how mankind may best live.  It does not set out the boundaries between the good and the bad, between the moral and the immoral, between propriety and impropriety.

The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one.  It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against non-aggressors.  Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them.  This means only that theses activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence.  It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper or good.

~ Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, introduction

P.J. O'Rourke on the two rules of a free society

There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business.  Keep your hands to yourself.

~ P.J. O'Rourke

Sheldon Richman on promoting libertarianism

Those of us who are trying to persuade people to embrace the nonaggression obligation – that is, classical liberalism, or libertarianism, may have an advantage though.  Most people already believe that they shouldn’t rob, hit, or kill, or otherwise aggress against others.  So those of us who are merely asking that this already widely accepted principle be applied across the board — even to people calling themselves the government — may have an easier job than we thought.

~ Sheldon Richman, "The Challenging Art of Persuasion," The Libertarian Institute, October 29, 2021

Frank Zappa on the non-aggression principle

The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. 

~ Frank Zappa

Kevin Duffy explains libertarianism

The core principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). The initiation of violence should not be tolerated. Proportional violence in self-defense, including protecting one’s property is permitted. Hiring agents (through peaceful, voluntary exchange) to defend one’s life, liberty and property is also consistent. 

Government, because it resorts to initiating violence, is inconsistent with NAP. This even applies to agents of self-defense (e.g., military, police, courts) because they are funded coercively. 

To the extent the left and right accept government intervention, they reject libertarian principles. They are two sides of the same interventionist coin and have much more in common than they realize. 

Libertarianism is value-agnostic and judges the morality of means employed. Every libertarian, of course, has their own unique set of values, as do all of us. I’m guessing nearly all believe moral means have the best chance of achieving those values. Interventionism, on the other hand, is ends-focused. The ends justify the means. Proponents believe their values have the best chance of being achieved through State coercion. 

Libertarians believe immoral means lead to trouble. Since most people are wired for intervention, any crisis is typically blamed on freedom (e.g. the free market, or capitalism) which brings about cries for even more intervention.

~ Kevin Duffy, "What are the basic principles of libertarianism?," Quora, December 17, 2020

Penn Jillette on the difference between welfare and charity

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give money to poor people is compassion.  Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion.  Voting for government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.  People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered.  If we're compassionate, we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right.  There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

~ Penn Jillette

Cicero on the precepts of the law

The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give everyone else his due.

~ Cicero

Stephan Kinsella on libertarianism and property rights

[U]nless you are pro-market, pro-private property, you have no basis to oppose the state, for the state is simply the agency of institutionalized aggression against private property rights.  To oppose the state is to support property rights, since opposing aggression means opposing the invasion of property.  Conversely, those who oppose property rights inevitably support the state or other forms of aggression.

~ Stephan Kinsella, "Down with anti-market "anarchists," LewRockwell.com Blog, September 9, 2008