True Libertarianism: A Response to “Are You Really A Libertarian?”
By Sam Pauken
What is a libertarian? Ask anyone you meet, and you’ll probably get many different answers. If you’re one yourself, you’ll no doubt be disheartened at all the misconceptions that are out there. That’s not surprising. Libertarians are still a minority in America, and many people misunderstand beliefs that are not their own.
First, the assertion that “Nietzsche and Hitler…as [libertarianism’s] logical conclusion” is outrageous to anyone who researches libertarianism. Even many conservative thinkers find strong similarities with their thinking and libertarian thinking, including Reagan, who said, “If believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Foundational thinkers that are continuously cited are men such as Adam Smith, Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek, and even Jefferson, who stated, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” If a philosophy is to be contended with, we cannot cite existential thinkers such as Rousseau and Nietzsche, as libertarians do not cite them as influences.
Next, we must refute the assertion that because libertarians deny human nature, “individuals are free to form themselves into whatever they choose to become.”
Although it is true that libertarians acknowledge the freedom of individuals to mold themselves as they see fit, it is false that they deny human nature. Although libertarians have disagreements on whether man is generally good or bad, they all agree that man is by nature, a free autonomous being who should make his own choices, free from the constraint of others, insofar as he does not harm others. Thus, this purported denial of nature actual results in the libertarian idea of human nature. Thus, the fact that our philosophy stops at actions that are directly injurious to others is anything but arbitrary, as it is rooted our understanding of who we are as people.
With this understanding, there is no logic in the assertion that the philosophy shared by Nietzsche and Hitler is the ultimate end of libertarianism. We believe in free individual choice, and any libertarian would recoil from any movement to such a society, as it is the very antithesis of our foundational understanding of people. It is the very fact that we do NOT make political statements on non-injurious issues that libertarians are principled and are anything but arbitrary in their ideals.
Operating under the same type of logic used in this article, libertarianism is far more moral than conservatism. Libertarians do no arrogantly believe that since they know better (or think they know better), that they have the moral right to take hold of another person’s life and mold it to what they think it should be. This will lead to a totalitarian conservative nation where every aspect of people’s lives is micromanaged for complete moral purity. Whatever the majority believes to be immoral, they will make it illegal and force everyone to conform to it, destroying the freedoms we have grown to cherish, leaving us at the mercy of a mob that thinks it knows better then we do and will control our lives to whatever end they may please.
As this conclusion is obviously absurd and a gross misrepresentation of conservatism, I hope that it is clear to the reader that the arguments detailed in the article are equally absurd and in no way accurately represent libertarian thought.
-Sam Pauken
Comments
4 Responses to “True Libertarianism: A Response to “Are You Really A Libertarian?””Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[...] found a very interesting and sincere article from the Hillsdale Natural Law Review titled “True Libertarianism: A Response to ‘Are You Really a Libertarian?’” in which a young devotee earnestly wishes to prove that libertarianism can indeed be [...]
-
[...] True Libertarianism: A Response to “Are You Really A Libertarian?”. Share this:FacebookTwitterRedditTumblrEmailPrint This entry was posted in [...]
Sam,
You make a lot of excellent points. You believe in human nature. Many Libertarians do not. My original claim is that those who do not believe in human nature are more true to Libertarianism.
I still believe that, because, as you said, there are a lot of misconceptions. Most Libertarians agree that the “no harm principle” forms the central part of Libertarianism. As you put it, “the fact that our philosophy stops at actions that are directly injurious to others is anything but arbitrary.”
The part that is arbitrary is where you draw that line. Does a woman hurt her children if she divorces their father? Does a man hurt his girlfriend when he persuades her to sleep with him and then asks her to get an abortion? Does a government hurt religious liberty by restraining people from expressing their beliefs in the public square, praying in school, or refusing to pay for birth control?
Many Libertarians would side with Liberals on these issues. They would answer “no,” to most of these questions. True conservatives, I argue, would say “yes” to each question. They understand that people have duties, as well as rights – indeed, that you cannot have rights without duties.
The fundamental threat to the American regime is the loss of Republican spirit. “Republic” comes from the Latin res publica, which translates to “the common good.” Americans today focus on their own happiness, to the detriment of the good of their neighbors. A healthy society requires strong families, strong independent associations, and a desire to serve – and sacrifice oneself for – others. Strains in Libertarianism and Liberalism, which focus on rights to the detriment of duties, support this perversion, and undermine the basic framework of our society.
Washington said that this government was made for a moral and religious people, and that it is wholly inadequate for any other. By this he did not mean that every citizen had to be Christian, but that every citizen had to be dedicated to the common good. A free government requires a moral people.
Yes, our country is deep in debt. Yes, we are funding programs that waste money and reward laziness. Yes, we NEED economic reform. But this reform is one facet of the moral reform we truly need, and the Libertarianism that neglects duty opposes it.
Libertarians and Conservatives need to unite to oppose big government, and that is what Reagan meant in your quote above. The economists that you cite support a salutary economic system, but even that system relies on things like property rights, which depend on duty as much as right. The Libertarians who neglect duty – and who deny human nature – support good economic reforms, but the economy also requires virtue, and their philosophy too often provides an excuse for vice because “it does not hurt others.” In reality, we are more connected than they assume, and time wasted does hurt others – in opportunity cost.
Even leaving social issues aside, we can agree that a man who does the minimum to survive and plays video games all day does not reach his full potential. If his parents raised him, and he is ungrateful, he is harming them. If he is really smart, and could have contributed a great deal, he is wasting himself, and society loses what he could have contributed. The populations of European countries, especially that of Russia, have experienced this opportunity cost – the fact that people have fewer children has exascerbated the problems of the welfare state. If our hypothetical lazy man had children of his own, he could contribute in unimaginable ways. Perhaps he is not harming anyone by sitting on his rear, but he owes a debt to his parents and the society that raised him. He has a duty to make something of himself, just as surely as he has a right to decide HOW he will serve.
I never claimed the Libertarians are Nietzscheans, nor that all libertarians deny human nature. You have destroyed both of these claims articulately and convincingly – had I argued either claim, I would be convinced now of my error.