The words we use to describe our ideal are meaningless and off-putting to those they might help. "Liberty," "Anarchy," "Natural Rights," "Autonomy." While they might strike up courage and conviction in our hearts, these words and phrases seed confusion and disinterest in our friends, and even to an extent between libertarians.
Beyond the apathy our words yield in others, we lack language with which to discuss among ourselves. Communication steeped in and influenced by centuries of government has the flavor of the state, and is ill-fitted to the purpose of liberty. We fall back on definitions concocted by governors to describe our ideal in a roundabout fashion.
Let's consider a phrase we tack on to so many of our statements:
"as long as it does not infringe on another's rights to Life, Liberty, and Property."
Life, Liberty, and Property are the laws of libertarianism. We use 15 words to communicate the concept of adherence to our principles, for which statists have the word "legal."
ex. "There should be no regulation or tax on the manufacture, ownership, carriage, or use of firearms, as long as one does not use them to infringe on another's rights to Life, Liberty, and Property."
ex. "There should be no regulation or tax on the ______ manufacture, ownership, carriage, or use of firearms."
Fifteen words is more than enough to bore someone, but the idea they represent is necessary to the illumination of our platform. It is integral to illustrating the consistency within our philosophy. In the absence of man-made law, how do we simply, using one word, add the condition of adherence to the principles of liberty?
I'd love to hear your ideas on how to address this particular blip in libertarian dialect.
