[who_ami]

We often demand for policies that protect people's freedom and equality,
but may we go back to basics,
why are these values important to us?

[Writ_Large]

Most libertarians don't believe in equality. Some even despise it.

Typically, libertarians also don't frame their philosophy in terms of "freedom". We usually like to talk about non-aggression and self-ownership, although there are competing justifications for those concepts. The more statist a libertarian is, the more likely they'll also tell you that they believe in a free society simply because it produces better results than the alternative.

Why aren't those values important to you?

[Eran]

Libertarian arguments broadly fall into two distinct categories - the utilitists (e.g. the Friedmans) and the principled (e.g. Rothbard and Hoppe). I don't think there is any correlation between which argument you favour, and the degree to which you are a radical libertarian. David Friedman is a utilitist but also an anarchist, while Rand and her followers use principled arguments, but are Minarchists.

I believe the dichotomy is unnecessary. Both are excellent, mutually-supporting arguments.

The utility argument is fairly straightforward, even if often disputed. For a variety of reasons (personal motivation, knowledge and price coordination), a free economy functions much more efficiently than a centrally-controlled one.

The principled argument can most easily be explained using Hoppe's argumentation ethics.

In a nutshell, we can identify properties of a justifiable legal system (i.e. a legal system one can rationally justify through argumentation, rather than merely impose by force). Those properties include strong universalizability (all people are treated the same) and respect to the other person's self-ownership (without which one cannot freely argue).

Since disputes between people always and necessarily involve the disposition of scarce resources, any system that peacefully resolves such disputes must have a mechanism for determining the use of each such resource.

The Universalizability requirement means that the linkage between resources and those people in a position to determine their disposition cannot be arbitrary, but must be based on an objective and interpersonally-ascertainable link between the resource in question and the person making the decision.

Such linkage obviously exists between a person and his body. With respect to natural resources, the first person to make use of a resource clearly has such an objective linkage to the resource. No other person can ever have a stronger linkage. Thus the Rothbardian homesteading principle of acquiring property rights follows naturally.

[Daktoria]

We often demand for policies that protect people's freedom and equality,
but may we go back to basics,
why are these values important to us?

Nobody chooses to be born. We all have a qualitative unit of personhood.

The physical magnitudes of strength we're born with are all matters of luck.

Guilt is an attitude. Ergo, it cannot go hand in hand with luck.

[Zenno]

The idea that “we are all born equal” originates with the Christian idea that “we are all equal before God.” This Christian idea then developed into European Humanism, Socialism and finally gave birth to the idea of “universally valid” Human Rights. These are Western ideas that are not shared by most non-Western cultures. The same idea has contributed to the development of positive law with the idea that we are all “equal before the law.”

In China, Confucianism is based on a hierarchical view of society, in which each person is in a hierarchical relationship all others. The major hierarchical relations are: father/son, ruler/subject, husband/wife, master/disciple, etc. This hierarchical view of society has formed the Chinese consciousness for over 2000 years. That is why it is so hard for Chinese rulers to accept the idea of “universally valid” human rights. To a Confucian the idea of equality is totally incomprehensible and subversive; he can only understand society in terms of hierarchy.

In India, the class system has been consolidated for just as long by the idea of Karma. According to the idea of Karma, you are born in a high class because you have lived a virtuous life in previous reincarnations. You are born in a low class because you were a thief or murderer in previous incarnations. Hence, it doesn’t make sense to revolt against your status in life because it cannot be changed. You can only aspire to a better life in future reincarnations if you behave well in this life, respect the higher classes and don’t make any trouble.

[Daktoria]

China and India suck ass. They're hypercompetitive, labor intense, astrological societies with no respect for individuality at all. They just expect people to constantly defect in prisoner dilemmas, and they don't care how people can get hurt or in trouble because there are so many replacements to be industrially productive in their place.

If the West becomes more Chinese or Indian, life is going to be a terribly miserable experience.

[Soixante-Retard]

Libertarians easily concede that people are not born free and equal. To quote Hayek:

"The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people — he is not an egalitarian — but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are."

However libertarians insist that people are created equal. Created, in the sense that the legal structure does not recognize any privilege of any group. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, the law will not pre-favour any particular persons or group. An egregious example of where this code was broken was the pardoning of Richard Nixon by virtue that he was a previous president.

I highly recommend reading chapter 5 "Created Equal" in Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" for more information on this subtle distinction between born equal and created equal.