Ideology III: Why I am a libertarian

In the third of a 4 part series on ideology, I would like to explain why I am a libertarian.

The basis for my libertarian beliefs stem from the belief in the non-aggression axiom. The non-aggression axiom is defined by Wikipedia as being "holding that 'aggression', which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense."

This links in with my blog a little while ago on, "What is a Law?" As noted there, a law is the initiation of force. This is key to my libertarian stance. Thus, we must ask ourselves the question: when is it permissable to use force?

It must here also be said that using force by the government passing a law is exactly the same as an individual using force. The government, I posit, does not have any particular legitimacy in using force (although it may well be the most efficient way to go about using force should it need to be used). It is of course the burden of the believer rather than the skeptic to show why the government does have legitimacy in intiating force; but there are a few arguments used which I shall outline:
1. The government has been granted legitimacy through democracy. This argument would say that because the majority of some population have given their assent in a certain way, the government is legitimised to use force on behalf of that majority against the population as a whole. The problem here is that I do not see why a minority should have forced used against them because some (arbitrarily chosen) majority says it's fine to. One way to illustrate this is to imagine a room with ten people in it. Nine of the people decide that they want to be richer. They talk together in a corner of the room, and eventually decide to have a public vote. The bill they are voting on is whether the nine people should steal all the tenth person's money and spread it amongst themselves. The votes come in: it's 9 to 1. They steal his money and give it to themselves. Now, that was democratically decided; so it's fine right? Of course we intuitively know that that is absolutely not fine. There is no reason to believe that the majority of a population holding a certain belief means that, whatever that belief is, that it is morally permissable. The individual holds his rights against the majority as the person who clearly holds the most rights over person X is person X.
2. The government presides over that country; if you don't like the country that's fine, you can leave, but if you choose to live in it then you are part of our society. This argument would suggest that there is some implicit social contract which we abide by when we choose to live in a country. However we must ask; when did I agree to this social contract? If I had agreed to it and signed it then, yes, the government could tell me what to do. But I've never signed such a contract, nor has anybody else. Just because I 'live in this country' does not mean that I'm implicitly part of the arbitrarily defined 'society'. Because if it was that simple, then I could go and set up another government and say, "I run this second government. If you choose to live in this society, you're under my rules too!" That would clearly be ridiculous, but that would have the exact same legitimacy as the government in this current argument puts forth. If I own the land I live on, and if I'm given permission to go on the land other people live on, then how could it be that any government can claim legitimacy in using force over me because I live in 'their property'? Plainly this argument fails.

Thus, I do not think that the government has any inherent legitimacy in using force over me or anyone else.
So we return to the question: When is it permissable to levy force against someone? I will argue that it is only permissable to levy force in order to protect people's rights, because the individual alone has claim to their rights; as noted above, nobody else can legitimately claim to have rights over another person. What rights are these?
I put forward that we exist at three points in time: the past, the present, the future. Each one of these corresponds to one natural right. Ourselves in the future is our life - for we can only exist in the future if we are alive. Ourselves in the present is our liberty - it is our freedom to act, and we can only act in the present of course. Ourselves in the past is our property - it is everything our toils have bought us up until this point. Life, liberty and property, the three natural rights of man. It cannot be said that we have rights over anything else, for then we would start to infringe upon other people's rights. For example, if it was said that we have a right to education - well, somebody needs to pay for that education which will constitute an infringement of the right of property. Or if it was said that British manufacturers need protection from cheap imports, and thus import tariffs should be levied - but that means that the liberty of the importers (and foreign exporters) are infringed upon.

These three inalienable rights are what should be protected. In order to protect them, the non-aggression axiom must be adhered to.
At this point I should state that if I was not Christian, I would not be libertarian. For it is the Christian committment to not initiating force and to taking violence very seriously that leads me to the non-aggression principle. I do not argue that libertarianism necessarily leads to the best outcomes (although I think for the vast majority of situations it does). But it's a committment to morals and means, rather than ends, consistent with Christianity, that means that we must put the non-aggression principle above the actual consequences.

Thus, in summary: It is immoral to initiate force against others, because to do so would be to infringe upon the rights of the person who owns them - that person in question. The government has no special legitimacy to infringe upon rights. The rights which must not be infringed upon and which the non-aggression principle upholds are those to life, liberty and property.