In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth than they need to provide for themselves.
My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations.
I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.
The NAP tries to draw a line between what people can do to each other in society and hence what groups of people are able to do to each other ; it doesn't tell you to not help the poor "because it's my property", it tells you you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense that you will use the stolen resources to feed someone dying (Also, maybe the "duty to rescue" is a fair legal way of dealing with small scale incidents like theses), you have to convince that person to give you the resource to help the other person. By doing so, she/he might discover others situations, have compassion, get interested in those matters, get engaged just like you do etc... Seems more fair to me for everyone.
And you can be libertarian and have the value to help other individuals, theses values are not mutually exclusive.
Note : not all libertarian think with the NAP. I personally think it might be a great intellectual construct and could be good to introduce libertarianism to people ; but I'm not sure about how it could fit into our actual society and laws. There's 200 years of very interesting classic liberalism philosophy before Rand and Rothbard :)
When solidarity is taken as a core value
What do you mean by that ? Try to create some laws or use case, or give me a link to people you read that talk about that ;)
My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations.
Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ? For example running the whole economy through the visible hand of the friendly politicians, as a mean to control society and be 100 % sure that no one dies of hunger in the street.
>Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ?
It probably does, just as capitalism was borne into this world with violence, "soaked in blood" as Marx put it. The point however is that it does not rely on violence to support property relations, beacuse anarchists generally view such violence for the purpose of property as inhumane. I can't speak for Chomsky personally.
>Seems more fair to me for everyone.
Arguably, it seems that property is "fair" only for the very few, and especially not those who must rely on charity. What fairness is found in the case of a man who cannot secure the bread to eat, for his wages are surrendered to the capitalist, middleman and State for rent or tax? It's always amusing to me this idea that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the proponents always figure themselves to be capitalists, never the poor, the dregs of society, the propertyless who live in hideous conditions.
>it tells you you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense that you will use the stolen resources to feed someone dying
Perhaps we have a different view of what is just, then. I would even agree with you if we were talking about personal property. But we are not, we are talking about private property, and I think that such an attitude is abhorrent in the face of such conditions.
My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations.
I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.