o protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the righAmong the Libertarian circles, Socialism and Communism are frequently regarded as the greatest evil -- that is, to say, the greatest opposition to liberty, and anything to oppose freedom must considered an evil. Essentially, Libertarianism is a basis for obtaining an opinion on social issues: those things which encroach upon personal liberty are to be opposed. The Libertarian thought represents a great deal of progressive ideals, as well as conservative ideals. Simply put, Libertarianism does not place emphasis on liberal versus conservative, or new versus old. Rather, it is based on the one idea of liberty, hence the title. For gay rights, Libertarianism is supportive of it, since it promotes a person's right to their own private activity. For Censorship, it is opposed, since demotes a person's right to their individual liberty. In these ways, Libertarianism is similar to that of progressive ideals. As far as Free Trade and Capitalism go, Libertarianism is supportive, again, based on the fact that just as a person ought to have social and political liberty, they must also have economic liberty, and right to sell and purchase without hindrance. In this way, Libertarianism is closer to conservative rather than liberal values. However, as I stated earlier, Libertarianism is not based on promoting or demoting ideals based on whether they are new or old, liberal or conservative, radical or archaic. Libertarianism is based solely on the idea of opposing laws and regulations which interfere with personal liberty.

Yet, for this statement to have any meaningful context, one must understand another question: what is personal liberty? If I were to say that Libertarianism is based on promoting individual liberty, I would be withholding the entire story. There are certain liberties which Libertarianism specifically restrict. The so-called personal rights are promoted, where a person is not allowed to steal or to kill another. This is the great contradiction of Libertarianism: a man may do whatever he pleases, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of another -- these rights often defined in a variety of ways, but always by the Libertarian thinker himself. They great failure of these thinkers is simple: they have not been able to intrinsically denote the difference between "the right to protection from theft" and "the right to protection from economic exploitation," or "the right to protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the right

liberty, hence the title. For gay rights, Libertarianism is supportive of it, since it promotes a person's right to their own private activity. For Censorship, it is opposed, since demotes a person's right to their individual liberty. In these ways, Libertarianism is similar to that of progressive ideals. As far as Free Trade and Capitalism go, Libertarianism is supportive, again, based on the fact that just as a person ought to have social and political liberty, they must also have economic liberty, and right to sell and purchase without hindrance. In this way, Libertarianism is closer to conservative rather than liberal values. However, as I stated earlier, Libertarianism is not based on promoting or demoting ideals based on whether they are new or old, liberal or conservative, radical or archaic. Libertarianism is based solely on the idea of opposing laws and regulations which interfere with personal liberty.

Yet, for this statement to have any meaningful context, one must understand another question: what is personal liberty? If I were to say that Libertarianism is based on promoting individual liberty, I would be withholding the entire story. There are certain liberties which Libertarianism specifically restrict. The so-called personal rights are promoted, where a person is not allowed to steal or to kill another. This is the great contradiction of Libertarianism: a man may do whatever he pleases, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of another -- these rights often defined in a variety of ways, but always by the Libertarian thinker himself. They great failure of these thinkers is simple: they have not been able to intrinsically denote the difference between "the right to protection from theft" and "the right to protection from economic exploitation," or "the right to protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the righ

tive rather than liberal values. However, as I stated earlier, Libertarianism is not based on promoting or demoting ideals based on whether they are new or old, liberal or conservative, radical or archaic. Libertarianism is based solely on the idea of opposing laws and regulations which interfere with personal liberty.

Yet, for this statement to have any meaningful context, one must understand another question: what is personal liberty? If I were to say that Libertarianism is based on promoting individual liberty, I would be withholding the entire story. There are certain liberties which Libertarianism specifically restrict. The so-called personal rights are promoted, where a person is not allowed to steal or to kill another. This is the great contradiction of Libertarianism: a man may do whatever he pleases, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of another -- these rights often defined in a variety of ways, but always by the Libertarian thinker himself. They great failure of these thinkers is simple: they have not been able to intrinsically denote the difference between "the right to protection from theft" and "the right to protection from economic exploitation," or "the right to protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the righ

tarianism specifically restrict. The so-called personal rights are promoted, where a person is not allowed to steal or to kill another. This is the great contradiction of Libertarianism: a man may do whatever he pleases, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of another -- these rights often defined in a variety of ways, but always by the Libertarian thinker himself. They great failure of these thinkers is simple: they have not been able to intrinsically denote the difference between "the right to protection from theft" and "the right to protection from economic exploitation," or "the right to protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the righo protection from being offended by another's sexual preference." A person may argue, for instance, that to walk nude in public will offend them, and cause them harm, just as much as someone stealing their property. Yet a Libertarian thinker would respond that the nudist has his rights while the thief does not. The problem is that there is no argument to promote one right and to debase another. It is just assumed that the "natural rights" are opposed to theft and murder. Essentially, the problem of its ideology is this: it fails to make the distinction of the right of not being offended to the right of life -- that Libertarianism will promote liberty when it's to go nude, but not when it is to steal. There may be some inane, erroneous work which attempts to justify "natural rights" of life and property, but I've yet to find anything substantial to defend these rights over any others.

When growing up, and developing my initial theories of justice and fairness, I could typically be classified as a Libertarian in the classical sense: I believed that a person's individual liberty ought to be respected. At this time, I did not understand the whole nature of rights -- I did not understand that while I promoted the right to nudity, I was demoting the right to theft, and that there was no intrinsic way to justify one without justifying the other. By justifying one or the other, I meant justifying them on the basis of Libertarianism, which is "to promote liberty." I believed in the freedom of opinion, in the right of a person to do as they wished, without interference to others. The basic conception of liberty that I had was that a man can do as he wishes, as long as he does not impact on the liberty of others. Of course, this left a great deal of questions unanswered. I believed in person and individual liberty. Anything to impose upon this, whether it stemmed from religious or moral bias, ought to be disallowed. If a man wanted to dress up like a woman, wearing a dress with an image of a man burning an American flag, while walking down the street advertising free sexual acts -- if a man wanted to do this, it is his right to do this, just as it is a man's right to walk down the street, dressed normally, keeping completely quiet and to himself.

But then, I began to investigate the matter of rights much more. Libertarians, like many Capitalists, believe that Animal Rights Activists are opposed to Free Enterprise, in that they want to make it illegal to purchase or kill animals. The fault with this understanding of rights is that it applies only to humans. A person would be even more Libertarian if they thought it should be made legal to kill human beings and sell their body parts as food and decoration. Those who had a Libertarian mindset in the 1800's, they would believe that such rights are excluded to women. To promote a woman's right to autonomy, they may argue, would be "to destroy a man's right to property, in his partner." In the 1700's, those who argued for the aboliti