We founded Blagnet.net to promote the philosophy of libertarian anarchism, which we consider the only true and universal human morality. By morality we mean: the code of right vs. wrong, just vs. unjust—the enunciation of what humans may and may not rightfully do. We don’t confuse morals with virtue because the latter is not our concern, nor should it be the concern of any political philosopher. We don’t purport to say how people should behave, how they should run their lives, what preferences they should have or choices they should make, on matters of virtue vs. vice nor on any other personal matter. On the contrary, we proclaim that no one has that right nor should have that power, and this is precisely what libertarianism—which we also call anarcho-capitalism, market anarchism, or individualist anarchism—amounts to.
Why anarchism? How can we posit that, one, the State is immoral, and, two, that a Stateless society would actually work, much less be preferable to the State?
Consider the relationship between one human and another. What rights, privileges, or power are innate to one human but not the other? Morally and philosophically, what is the difference between different people? There is none. All humans are on the same moral ground by virtue of their existence as reasoning, intelligent beings.
As a great minarchist once wrote, all men are created equal. We have one, and only one, self-evident right: the right of self-ownership. Every human has perfectly complete and equal sovereignty over his own body, mind, and property, and no right to any form of control or sovereignty over anyone else. Every rational person holds this truth to be self-evident.
From this truth we can imagine a boundary of self-sovereignty, a sphere of liberty, surrounding each person. Each person is the complete owner of his self, and therefore no one may justly encroach upon his person, his property, or the liberty to do what he wants with them. Conversely, the liberty to do what we want with our bodies and property extends only to the boundary of self-sovereignty protecting every other person. In this way, the sphere of liberty simultaneously and equivalently constrains and protects all human beings.
This is the origin of the non-aggression principle. Self-ownership. Equal self-ownership, which means complete sovereignty over yourself and no sovereignty of any kind for any length of time or for any purpose over anyone else. Judeo-Christian culture calls this the Golden Rule. Oliver Wendell Holmes stated it as, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” From this equal-self-ownership principle follows a conception of moral and metaphysical egalitarianism, in which all people are on the same moral standing, the same level in terms of rights and privileges vis à vis everyone else. No one may do to another what the other may not do to him. Every human is equally human.
No other right than self-ownership, or the rights that descend directly from self-ownership (private property rights), exist, for if they did, this would necessarily entail the corresponding encroachment of rights against someone else. But, then, if it is not held equally among all humans—if it entails or implies a moral imbalance in which one person may do something that another may not—it is immoral and not a right at all.
This is what we mean when we declare libertarian anarchism the one true, universal human morality. It is the only morality that not only can but must apply equally to all humans in all times, places, and circumstances.
Note that when we claim to champion the one true, universal human morality, we do not say a thing about what people should do; we only make statements about what people cannot do. We don’t claim to know, nor would we ever claim to say, what people should do with their own lives. (At least, we wouldn’t be making such statements as political writers, only as blaggers and social-commentators with opinions like everyone else.) People can and should subscribe to all the income-redistribution, police-protection, and medical-insurance schemes they want; if they let others peacefully abstain, then they are justly adhering to the non-aggression principle and are acting as morally as can be.
Some political websites are geared mainly towards gratifying their like-thinking readers and exchanging opinions between a circle of friends and philosophical allies, i.e., preaching to the choir. Some websites also seem to be motivated primarily by flinging as much baseless criticism at and arousing as much ire from as many people as possible. Our goals are diametrically opposed to both of these. We will strive to address (and attract) non-libertarian readers and challenge them to at least consider the anarchist viewpoint from time to time in their daily lives, to get them to play Devil’s advocate towards the Statist position on any and all issues. At the same time, we challenge ourselves to rigorously defend the anarchist position and play Devil’s advocate with ourselves, so that we can answer Statist arguments better and more professionally.
This page was modified from John’s first post; for a more rigorous defense of the philosophy of libertarianism, see that and Kel’s first post. We hope that those posts and many more will tickle your fancy and entice you to continue reading, questioning, and commenting. We’re working on creating a section of external links for your never-ending libertarian-enlightenment pleasure. If you run a blag that is somewhat related to libertarianism, we’d love the publicity of appearing in your Blagroll.
John and Kel