Sure. Here are some sources:
Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy A brief introductory essay.
Free-market.Net A huge collection of resources.
The Cato Institute The main libertarian “think tank”.
Libertarian.Org A bit of the history and theory of libertarianism.
The Libertarian Party Not strictly libertarian, but close enough for government work. 
Wow, thanks for the info *Lib! I think you may have just won a convert 
Wow. Thank you, Gomez!
So, like, is this one of those parody threads?
God go with you, Tris.
He goes with everybody…
In my head, Libertarian and Polycarp have the voices of those two ultra-polite gophers with the British accents from the cartoons; “Oh, no, you go first, I insist.” “Oh, dear, no, I simply couldn’t, you go first.”
Allow me to open my self for when Polycarp said:
and ignore the hi-jack if you wish…
Libertarian said:
Does that mean a fetus has rights because it breathes? Or if you wish to say that it does not because it does not breathe on its own, then does a fully grown registered voter no longer have rights when put on life support?
Technically speaking, it’s not breathing if the oxygen is arriving via blood from an umbilical cord.
He raises an interesting point, though. * Is * there a hard and fast libertarian rule for determining when a lump of a woman’s body, which is hers to do with as she pleases, becomes a lump of someone else’s body, which cannot be done with by said woman as she pleases?
“From the moment you breathe” is a figure of speech, pretty much meaning “from the moment you’re born.” I’m not sure if science has determined yet whether a fetus is a human being, but a fully grown adult, registered voter or not, breathing on his own or not, is certainly a human being, and is entitled to protection from coercion.
You might be interested to know that abortion is as controversial among libertarians as it is among everyone else. Since rights accrue to human beings, what matters is whether the fetus is or is not. Some say it is. Some say it ain’t.
Well, what do you know? This thread, in which people looking to watch a fight are upset because two people are working out a disagreement civilly, is going to get hijacked into an abortion debate.
More tea, Lib?
To revert to the discussion above, you may be misunderstanding the broad use I make of the term “metaphor” – which is, loosely defined, “any use of a term to clarify meaning by equating or comparing one thing to something else that it does not specifically meet the formal definition of.”
E.g., to take John’s Gospel which we both appreciate the depth of, Jesus describes himself as the “door of the sheep,” “the true vine,” “the good shepherd,” and several other things that He most clearly was not insofar as direct literalistic speech goes. This is a narrow use of metaphor. But in the broader use, His description of Himself in the evangelicals’ second-favorite verse from John as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” would also in my mind be metaphors – since He is not physically a path or a map route, a valid proposition, nor the essence of viability, though once again these terms are used by Him to illumine His role to us in a way that a dry-as-dust theological treatise would not.
Likewise, I conceive of property as objects in my possession or land to which I have title. I can fully understand that the term can be extended to my right to govern who, aside from the Chicago Reader, may use the words I write here for profit. I can grasp that you, (hypothetically) owning the property next to my (hypothetical) widowed mother’s, may wish to buy the reversion which I “own” on the parcel my father left to me with life interest to her – i.e., my future right to take possession of that property on her death, which would be yours if I sold it to you. Hence I can grasp how you can extend the concept of property to cover one’s life, one’s self, one’s rights, etc. But I conceive of these as matters having a different metaphysical essence from ownership, and hence describe your extension of the term as metaphor in my broader use of that word.
I would however be interested in seeing how you analyze those three “sale of rights” examples I created – that two are valid and one is not intrigues me.
I think you’re right, Poly.
Metaphysically, they are different. But rather than metaphysics, I’m talking ethics. Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy derived from the Noncoercion Principle.
In libertarian philosophy, noncoercion and freedom are synonyms. In other words, freedom is the absence of coercion. A context of peace and honesty, when enforced, provides for every individual the maximum possible freedom without robbing freedom from some other individual.
The ethical concept of ownership follows logically from the Noncoercion Principle. Though metaphysically you might own your land in a different way than you own your self, ethically they are the same. It was your mind and your body that you traded for wages so that you could purchase your land and your trinkets. You used your mind and body as capital for economic transactions.
With respect to your three questions, you can sell or mortgage anything you like that belongs to you. It might or might not be morally sound. In any event, it is not the business of man to define morality for other men. But ethically, you are neither bound to nor prohibited from selling whatever belongs to you.
A man cannot force you to sell, and you can force no one to buy. But if you are dealing with another consenting adult, and you have decided that you prefer to be his indentured servant, and he has decided that you would be a good one, thus by the two of you freely and willfully consenting, what business is it of any other man?
With your third question, however, you ask for something that is not mine to give. While you could petition an employer for a redress of grievances, or protect yourself from self-incrimination with your wife, no one will put you on trial but a government. A “right” that is given by a government is no right at all, but merely a permission that we hold at its whim. I have no right to a speedy trial to sell you. If I am to go on trial, it will be when they say and not when I say.
And I will have just a spot of tea since you offered.
Thanks. I had of course extracted the three example rights from the Bill of Rights; I’m pleased to see your logic that “rights” vis-a-vis a government depend solely on that government’s willingness to refrain from exercising a power that would “swamp” that right. The rights-vs.-powers concept is an old one but one that seems to have escaped many of the lawyers posting here, to judge from some of their comments.
And I’m beginning to grasp how you are an Objectivist, though that was not a part of your intent in this discussion.
BTW, would you object to a request to a Moderator to change this to something like “Rights Are Property?” While I’m honored to be the namesake of the thread, it might be appropriate to give it a more subject-matter-appropriate title.
It seems to me that Lib has hijacked this thread with his prostelizing of Libertarianism.
[ul]
[sup]But then that is only the way I see it.[/sup][/ul]
I must have hijacked it when I brought up the notion that I was speaking in metaphors. Oh, wait…
Poly:
No need. You’ve pledged to respect me when I share my views, even though they might be biased and predictable (if you know the philosophy). That’s all I wanted.
Moderator: You may close this thread. Thanks.