The following is an exchange that my friend and I had on Facebook regarding libertarianism (my personal political belief). The conversation took place back in June. Names have been abbreviated for the sake of anonymity. JB: does this go along well with libertarianism? Won: The two have nothing to do with one another. JB: but, doesn't it appear that libertarians are all out for themselves? Won: That's an unfair representation. I would frame it as everyone should be free to enjoy their lives with minimal interference and to be responsible for themselves. There's no selfishness in that. JB: are people responsible for themselves? what happens when someone takes an eye? Won: Personal responsibility coexists with the rule of law. There are both civil and criminal courts to handle situations like personal injury. If the act was done maliciously, there is law enforcement to handle just that situation. Being a libertarian doesn't mean that you don't need law enforcement to ensure people are held accountable for their actions. JB: @won - i'm right there with you. now, what happens when a business "takes an eye" for profit? if four fisherman fish on a lake and one fisherman always overfishes the lake depleting the stock so that the fish population can not sustain which impedes the other fisherman's livelihood, what should happen? Won: This is a very good question, JB. It's one of the biggest weaknesses in libertarianism. I'm one of the few people who would agree that civil law needs to include some agreement on the protection of the environment and other forms of externalities that cannot be adequately handled by the marketplace. I would lump things like fishing laws into civil and criminal laws, kind of like you would by policing littering. Those things need to be prosecuted to ensure that people preserve the delicate balance of the environment. Now how that sort of environmental law is enforced is probably something that most people would debate endlessly. Won: Yeah, my main reason for classifying myself with libertarianism is that it has the most overlap with my personal political views: 1. I think people should be allowed to live freely: marry who they want--including gay marriage, polyandry, polygamy etc--, have the kind of sex that they want, generally live how they want without interference, assuming it harms no one. 2. I want to get rid of the Federal Reserve. 3. I want to limit our military to defense ONLY.... See More 4. I don't believe in social welfare. 5. The general principle that less is more, when it comes to government. 6. Drugs and prostitution should be legalized. 7. Limit on taxes 8. Economic freedom Now, the beliefs that places me outside of other libertarians is as follows: 1. I want to repeal the law that identifies corporations as people. Too much money and power concentrated into anyone's hands is a bad thing, and that law enables corporations to get away with murder. 2. I don't believe in patents. Ideas should not be owned by anyone. Knowledge should be freely shared. 3. Environmental protection and regulation of externalities JB: i can get down with a lot of that. but personally, if i were you, i wouldn't call myself a libertarian. glenn beck calls himself a libertarian, even though he is a fascist. you are no glenn beck. in short, they have a PR problem. they look like a bunch of big business racists bullies.... i would refer to you as a socially liberal fiscal conservative. Won: Hahaha. Glenn Beck gives humankind a bad name. He's a babbling buffoon. However, I am open to having him and his ilk work as instruments to dismantle certain institutions that I find even more reprehensible. JB: yeah, but don't get your hopes up, the chances of those government institutions and programs being removed or replaced are so small, that it will never happen. Won: A boy can still dream... Y: Interesting comments Won, I think I agree with all, except 3. Because then, I would lose my job! However, I'm a bit perplexed on your belief on patents. If someone works hard on an idea, is it not their right to be able to profit from it? Won: They can profit from it, but I believe that hoarding knowledge itself is counterproductive. Openness in innovation breeds more creativity and the expansion of knowledge, and has the ultimate net effect of benefiting everyone. Consider the fashion industry, there is no patent protection on clothing styles. It was deemed too utilitarian to be patentable. That industry has its fair share of copycats, but it doesn't take away from the cachet of the original, nor does it reduce the profitability of that industry. And everyone borrows ideas from each other, pushing each other to more creative output. I am sickened by the notion that things like medical, technical, and scientific knowledge can be privatized in such a way as to prevent the growth of the collective intellectual capital of society. Imagine having all of the protocols of the Internet be patented by the original computer scientists, so that no one can use IP without paying a license fee. The innovations in that field would be stifled and we would not be enjoying the Internet as we do today. Worst of all, the patent office over the last decade has decided that life itself can be patented. There are patents on the fundamental building blocks of life such as DNA sequences. It's absurd. A company can enjoy the fruits of its labor by creating a compelling product and/or providing a superior service. Being the first discoverer of something doesn't make you the absolute owner of it. If we're honest with ourselves, everything we know or discover in life is always built on top of the knowledge of someone else. It's ridiculous to assume ownership over something, without recognizing that it was not done in a vacuum. In the context of my libertarianism, this notion fits in the philosophy of lassez-faire. Let ideas be free and let the market decide who is the winner.