I don’t understand why some people are hostile to libertarians.
After all, our philosophy is based on the notion that we want government to be limited so it is less likely to reach into your wallet or your bedroom.
At the risk of oversimplifying, libertarians think it’s okay for government to safeguard life, liberty, and property from force and fraud, but we’re very leery about giving additional powers to the government.
Seems like a reasonable governing philosophy to me, but some people object to being treated like adults and they lash out with very silly attacks on libertarianism.
Consider this article in Slate, which makes it seem as if libertarians are hypocrites if they accept – and express appreciation for – assistance from firefighters.
…an Okanogan, Washington man named Brad Craig thanks firefighters for saving his home. It’s a nice moment, though if you look closely you’ll notice that Craig
happened to be wearing a t-shirt that given the circumstances is quite ironic… The shirt says “Lower Taxes + Less Government = More Freedom.” …10 different government organizations are mentioned in the AP story about the large-scale coordinated response that worked to Craig’s benefit.
Wow. I’m not sure whether the author is malicious or clueless, but this is remarkable. He’s basically saying that if you want less government, you must be a hypocrite if you support or benefit from any government.
Which is the same as me asserting that leftists are hypocritical to buy I-Phones because their support for more government means that they therefore must favor total government and no private sector.
There are, of course, some libertarians who persuasively argue that we don’t need government fire departments. And some who even argue that we don’t need any government.
But even if Brad Craig (the guy with the t-shirt) was in one of these categories, that doesn’t make him a hypocrite. Many poor and middle-class families would like a voucherized education system so they could afford to send their kids to private schools. In the absence of such a reform, are they hypocrites for sending their kids to government-run schools?
Obviously not.
Here’s another example. The government today takes money from just about all of us to prop up a poorly designed Social Security system. Are the workers who have been coerced into that system hypocrites if they take Social Security benefits when they retire?
Of course not.
Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller also weighed in on this topic. Here’s some of what he wrote.
I can express a desire for less government interference in my life without rejecting the need for firefighters. Or police, or roads, or Stop signs, or whatever. I understand that it’s actually possible to advocate individual liberty while still admitting the need for government. People have been saying such things for hundreds of years.
Well said.
Let’s close with this look at how libertarians are the reasonable middle ground between two types of statists. I don’t fully agree with all the characterizations (many leftists favor corporate welfare and are not tolerant of other people’s personal choices, for instance, while there are folks on the right who aren’t very committed to economic freedom), but it’s worth reviewing.
If you want to figure out where you belong, there is a short way, medium way, and long way of answering that question.
And while I don’t want put my thumb on the scale as you take these tests, I’ll simply note that decent and humane people tend to be libertarians.
P.S. Here’s a more scholarly look at the difference between libertarians and conservatives.
P.P.S. And here’s my take on why there aren’t any pure libertarian societies.
P.P.P.S. Here’s my collection of libertarian humor.
[…] Obama tax propaganda, Elizabeth Warren’s class warfare, sequester hysteria, export subsidies, libertarianism, carried interest, government size, inequality, Scandinavia, and the value-added […]
[…] if you don’t like taking quizzes, you can simply scan this list of issues and see where libertarians fit between conservatives and […]
I think that libertarians are right on pretty much everything they say.
Possibly, but there are extreme’s to all views, so we are all “fools”. Fighting “government” can be extreme. As a analogy, this country’s original 13 colony’s would still be just 13 colony’s according to libertarian thinking, government has no authority to acquire land, land is owned by individuals, but it has not worked that way in history. Sure, I suppose any individual could have petitioned France, or England to exchange something for some of the land, but would it of happened in a timely manner? Doubt it.
People who argue against libertarianism are fools. Libertarians claim that they want to live in the freest possible world they can. What is so horrible about that?
[…] I’m in Cambodia, where I just finished a series of speeches to civic groups on some of my usual topics, in this case tax policy, the recipe for growth, and libertarian principles. […]
[…] I’m in Cambodia, where I just finished a series of speeches to civic groups on some of my usual topics, in this case tax policy, the recipe for growth, and libertarian principles. […]
Perhaps your agenda, as stated in the article, is very comparable to progressive ideas. The only difference being libertarians lack of understanding that money talks so much better then freedom.
I have a number of quibbles with that chart on the bottom. For example, liberals have pretty clearly demonstrated that they do NOT believe in “tolerance of others’ personal choices”. They believe you should have the right to have sex with a prostitute — but the street light she solicits under better not have incandescent bulbs! They believe you should have the right to use cocaine in the privacy of your own home — but not to run a homeschool in the privacy of your own home. You should have the right to hold a gay marriage — but not to refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage. In short, they believe that you should be allowed to do things that they approve of, but not allowed to do things that they disapprove of. If “freedom” means the freedom to do anything that the people in power approve of, well, under what regime would that not be true? What government has ever said, “We think X is a good thing, but we’re making it illegal”?
Yes. Liberals frequently make the bizarre argument that if you concede that there is ANY proper role for government — like police or military — then you must logically concede that EVERYTHING is the proper role of government. And if you don’t agree with that, you’re being a hypocrite. That’s like saying that if you agree that motor oil is good for your car, logically you MUST think that it’s also good to pour on your plants and feed to your baby, and if you don’t, you’re a hypocrite. How can you say that motor oil is good for cars but not for babies? Hypocrite!
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]
InsureBlog – Fire department lets house burn down
The lefties mock libertarians and a free and cooperative market for being heartless toward people in trouble. But, this is a projection of leftist policy, not the market. It is government bureaucracy which witholds help if your form 39-B is missing. The leftists are just as determined as any group to limit their costs, and are indifferent when it serves their message.
A local fire department let a house burn to the ground because the owner had not paid his $75 fee.
This is a shockingly stupid response by the fire department, a local government agency. Yes, the homeowner should have prepaid the fee. But, the response should have been to put out the fire and charge the homeowners for the full service costs.
A private fire service would have extinguished the blaze at the request of the frantic owner and sent the homeowner a bill. There are plenty of examples of this in private marketplaces.
This puts the lie to the idea of a benevolent government. They will impose or allow any loss to make their point, rather than handle the short-sightedness of the homeowner with some flexibility.
A similarly shocking result of leftist planning is that they don’t mind fitting the individual into the great design, and you will have no way of bargaining your way out (unless you are a former politician or union boss).
Fair Distribution of Life-Years
Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health and an architect of ObamaCare. His brother is Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of staff.
Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in The Lancet medical journal Jan 2009 [edited]:
=== ===
Allocation of healthcare by age is fair, unlike allocation by sex or race. Even if people aged 25 receive priority over those aged 65, everyone who is now 65 was previously 25.
It would be ageist to treat 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods. It is fair to treat them differently because they have already received more life-years.
=== ===
Summary: We treated you when you were young, so it is fair that we not treat you when you are old. You already received your treatments.
Our politicians have maintained themselves in power by making promises, essentially buying votes. The promises had to be dramatic and simple. The medical care promise has been “pay into the system, and we will do everything possible to keep you alive and functioning as you become old and sick”. Everything possible by their construction is what is left over after they care for their current tax and voting base. Promises? We will do what we can.
A free market doesn’t work this way. Ironically, the government should stay out of all businesses and healthcare to preserve an unbiased position as it enforces reasonable laws.
It’s one of the first arguments you’re likely to encounter in any debate.
Am I a hypocrite if I utilize something I was already forced to pay for? Is it wrong for me to take back what was taken from me?
Most of all, since language itself originated from no government whatsoever, should every left-winger shut up altogether by their own logic?
I like the chart. Unfortunately, the modern left and right are increasingly ignoring the middle entirely, with the end result that their only difference is what sort of totalitarianism they support.
(BTW, I think the Left/Right thing is total nonsense. The real distinction between those who want to be controlled (and/or doing the controlling) and those who don’t.)
Dan, thank you for advancing the cause of Libertarianism. I am grateful for finding your writings. I recently posted http://miltonchurchill.com/2015/09/07/the-modern-philosophical-political-economic-and-social-spectrum-united-states-of-america/ that explored the left-right paradigm. My goal with this particular post is to shift the debate away from Libertarians being considered “far right wing radicals”. The fact is that both major political parties in the US are firmly grounded in Socialism and big government. The founding fathers, while considered radicals by their rulers an ocean away, were actually reasonably minded centrists. My blog is new, but as I continue to develop it, the goal is to educate and bring young people to Libertarianism.