Here are two libertarian axioms.
1. The non-aggression non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle.
2. Private property rights.
The two libertarian axioms CONTRADICT each other. (As I recently explained here and here.)
You have four choices.
1. Deny the contradiction. (Objectivist libertarianism)
2. Maintain the contradiction.
3. Reject the non-aggression non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle. (Christian libertarianism)
4. Reject private property rights. (Anarcho-pacificism)
The choice is up to you.
5 thoughts on “A libertarian dilemma”
Update: I changed ‘non-aggression principle’ to ‘non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle’.
This addresses my major misgiving with what is now promoted as libertarianism.
Especially the “this is my private property just don’t ask where I got it” approach which I usually hear from criminals.
Position 3) is a difficult one. It seems to me that if you want property rights and also are happy to initiate aggression then you’re in the same category as Ghengis Khan, who was not famed as a Christian libertarian.
Would Christ reject the NIOF principle so that he could own private property?
Yes, he would. And he did.
Tam;&I#39,m sorry but you must be south of the Mason-Dixon line or be from there before you can use the word y'all. If you are wondering I am in North Carolina and can use the word with reckless abandon! Kel