Most people on the Left and the Right misunderstand the essence of libertarianism. This should come as no surprise since even some libertarians misunderstand the essence of libertarianism.
Libertarianism should not be expanded beyond what it is, by libertarians or anyone else. It should not be fused with any personal preference or extraneous ideology.
[Click to Tweet]
The nonaggression principle
The guiding principle undergirding the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the nonaggression principle. As explained by the great libertarian economist and theorist Murray Rothbard (1926–1995):
The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
The creed of libertarianism is nonaggression: freedom from aggression and violence against person and property as long as one respects the person and property of others. Aggression is the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud. The nonconsensual initiation of aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong — even when done by government actors. The use of force is justified only in self-defense or retaliation, must be proportional, but is neither essential nor required. And the use of force is only defensible against actual aggression, not because there is a theoretical possibility that someone might commit an aggressive act. Libertarians reject individual and especially government aggression against a nonaggressive individual’s person or property in order to prevent an action from occurring, effect a change in thinking or behavior, compel virtue or charity, achieve some desired end, or punish some peaceful action that is occurring or has already occurred.
Libertarianism
Libertarianism, therefore, as explained by Rothbard “is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.” Libertarianism “is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” Thus, in a libertarian society, that is, a free society,
People are free to pursue happiness in their own way, provided that they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.
People are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful — even if their choices are deemed by others to be harmful, unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, sinful, financially ruinous, destructive, or irresponsible.
People are free to participate in any activity as long as their activities are non-violent, non-disorderly, non-disruptive, non-threatening, and non-coercive.
The voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults is none of the government’s business.
Freedom of voluntary association, discrimination, and conscience are absolute.
Individuals, not society or the government, are the ones who decide what behaviors they want to practice and what risks they are willing to take.
Because there are no such things as nebulous crimes against nature, society, or the state; because vices, immoral actions, dangerous activities, sin, self-harm, and financial irresponsibility should never be considered crimes; and because every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property, the functions of government in a free society should be strictly limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property by prosecuting and exacting restitution only from those individuals who initiate violence against, commit fraud against, coerce, or violate the property rights of others. This means that the government should not transfer our wealth in the name of social justice, fairness, or equality; tax us to fund its boondoggles, military adventures, or programs that compete with the free market; force us to be charitable; compel us to be virtuous; or punish us for doing things that are not aggression, force, coercion, compulsion, threat, or violence.
So, regardless of what many liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists may think about libertarianism, libertarianism is not about libertinism, utilitarianism, rebellion, indifference, greed, materialism, selfishness, revolution, anarchy, skepticism, atheism, nihilism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, egalitarianism, antinomianism, hedonism, or licentiousness. Libertarianism is not “every man for himself,” “anything goes,” “situation ethics,” “survival of the fittest,” “freedom from all constraints,” “dog eat dog,” “rugged individualism,” or “unfettered capitalism.”
But neither is libertarianism about one’s lifestyle, tastes, sexual proclivities, school of aesthetics, social attitudes, tolerances, values, morals, habits, diet, vices, or personal preferences. There is nothing about libertarianism that is inherently inimical to organized religion, the family, community, an ordered society, tradition, custom, shared values, cultural norms, objective standards of right and wrong, cooperation and collaboration between individuals, the natural law, social institutions, patriotism, the rule of law, or Judeo-Christian ethics. And it is an overly simplistic mischaracterization of libertarianism for libertarians or anyone else to say that libertarians are “economically conservative and socially liberal.” These are things that most nonlibertarians and even some libertarians don’t seem to get, hence the need for this article.
It is only by treating libertarianism as a moral instead of a political philosophy that libertarianism can be said to be an immoral philosophy. But even then, there is nothing inherently immoral about libertarianism, and, in fact, it is impossible for it to be so since libertarianism has no positive precepts or obligatory duties, and makes no assertions about God, religion, human nature, sin, or the afterlife. How could there be something immoral about abstaining from aggression, the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud, and wanting others and the government to do likewise? In fact, it is violating the tenets of libertarianism that is immoral.
Why are not liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists accused of being immoral when they advocate the government forcing some Americans to pay for the education, food, and health care of other Americans? Why do members of these groups not think it immoral for the government to lock people in cages for possessing too much of a plant the government doesn’t approve of? Libertarianism celebrates things such as individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, and a free society. There is nothing inherently immoral about any of these things.
Libertarian positions
Like liberalism, conservatism, and the rest, libertarianism is neutral on whether one buys organic produce, whether one wears a bicycle or motorcycle helmet, whether one recycles, whether one eats red meat, whether one supports local businesses, whether one wears a seatbelt, whether one takes vitamins, whether one is a vegetarian or vegan, or whether one avoids high fructose corn syrup.
But neither does libertarianism take a position on whether one believes in God, whether one attends church, whether one donates to charity, whether one is religious, whether one believes in life after death, whether one believes in a last judgment, whether one celebrates diversity, whether one votes, whether one salutes the flag, or whether one believes the Bible is the word of God. This lack of positive assertions bothers many who are not libertarians, and especially conservatives. The fact that libertarianism commits its followers to one simple proposition — it is wrong for anyone to initiate violence against anyone else, directly or via the government — is not enough for them.
What really bothers others, again, mainly conservatives, is that libertarianism has no position on things that are considered to be “bad.” Libertarianism takes no position on whether one plays the lottery, whether one gambles at a casino, whether one smokes tobacco or marijuana, whether one commits fornication or adultery, whether one uses profanity, whether one tells racial jokes, whether one reads a horoscope, whether one views pornography, whether one discriminates, or whether one is a homosexual. This doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t think that some of these practices are bad or even immoral. It just means that they believe it is not the proper function of government to interfere with the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults, “bad” as it may be, as long as they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others. Critics of libertarianism — and even some libertarians — have made libertarianism more complex or more expansive than it is.
This is no more evident than when it comes to the subject of value judgments. Most liberals and conservatives complain that libertarians don’t make value judgments while some libertarians complain when they do. In order to understand why this is so, we must first look at economic value theory.