(My Eastern New Mexico News column from October 18, 2017- posted in its entirety now that the paper's exclusivity has expired) I've been without internet access at my house. That's what happens when you can't afford to pay for it. I hope to be back tomorrow.
From time to time someone will tell me they really like the idea of libertarianism; they only wish it could work in the real world. This reminds me of someone confessing they like the idea of electricity, if only it could actually work. Because not only can it work, it does.
Libertarianism doesn't just work; you are surrounded by it all the time. In fact, you practice libertarianism yourself, even if you never realized it. And so does everyone else-- other than the noticeably rare, unpleasant monsters. If this weren't the case, civilization would be impossible, and society would collapse into relentless chaos and death.
Every time you buy something instead of stealing it, you've put libertarianism to work. Each time you choose to not punch someone who annoys you, you've made the libertarian choice. If you recognize the right of self-defense against people who would injure, kidnap, steal, or vandalize-- or threaten to do those things-- you've joined the ranks of libertarian thinkers. How does it feel to successfully use something people claim "can't work"?
Libertarianism is nothing more than accepting that you don't have the right to attack people or take their stuff. You probably learned this as a child. When people say they don't see how libertarianism can work in the real world, it's often because they desperately want to allow some exceptions, either for themselves or for others. Especially where certain jobs are concerned.
Any exception is imaginary-- right and wrong don't change depending on your job.
Everyone says they are against bullying, but almost everyone supports the bully they believe is on their side. They dream up excuses to rationalize how this bully isn't a bully, even as he attacks people. They fantasize that the bully's gang isn't a gang, or that his victims deserve it. They claim society couldn't function without these exceptions.
Almost everyone knows stealing is wrong, but most people try to find ways around this when they want something badly enough. They use dishonest words to make it sound different. So, instead of "theft", they call it a tax or a fine, a property code or a license fee.
This lack of consistency is the trap which leads people to conclude libertarianism "can't work", even as they live the vast majority of their lives by its principles.
Welcome to libertarianism. Feel free to drop the exceptions you've been trying to justify, because they are only holding you down. Libertarianism works for everyone.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Very interesting article!!
Nice post. This is pretty close to the line I take when discussing libertarianism with skeptics, and it's one of the reasons we try to include optimistic articles about the state of the world over at Libertarianism.org. But it also risks being something of a straw man.
In a sense, it's similar to arguing that all you need to justify political libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. There's an undefined term that's hiding much of the argument. For the NAP, it's what counts as aggression and as property. It's not that, say, a progressive who would reject strong property rights libertarianism thinks that it's okay to aggress against people or to take their property, it's that the progressive doesn't think taxation or regulation count as aggression.
So with your argument, "works" is doing a lot of, well, work here. What you're arguing above is that libertarianism as a political system defined by free markets and minimal or no government intervention and taxation "works" because in our daily lives treating each other with respect, not using violence, and refraining from stealing are the preferred behavior. Given that political libertarianism, then, is just taking those preferences to their logical conclusion, we in fact have considerable evidence that libertarianism works.
The counter is that libertarianism as a theory of government contains a good deal more than simply saying we should all respect each other's property, and that we don't have (as much) evidence for those parts of it. So your interlocutor isn't saying, "Libertarianism lacking evidence of its working because I think it's just fine to steal from people or punch them for no reason." He's saying, "Libertarianism lacks evidence of its working because, in order to have a peaceful and functioning society where we can engage in respectful, non-violent exchanges, we need a powerful government setting up rules, protecting our rights, enforcing agreements and laws, providing welfare so people aren't desperate, and taxing us in order to pay the costs of doing all that." That we all agree not to hit or steal from each other doesn't itself say much in response to that latter line of argument.
Which is all just a too long way of saying that, while it's important to point out that all of us to some extent internalize libertarianism principles, it's not quite enough to prove that, just because we live by those principles in our personal interactions, we'd benefit from those same principles applied at the state level if it means ultimately drastically shrinking or abolishing the state and its many programs.
Yeah, he's saying that. And it's exactly as ridiculous as saying we need unicorns to make our crops grow. There's zero evidence for his claims, and plenty of evidence against them, including the fact that I don't need government "help".
Government is the opposite of peaceful society. It is a sign your society has failed and isn't functional. Its every "exchange" is aggressive. It is disrespectful. Government never protects rights, but exists by violating them. Etc.
Saying government is "necessary" is an extraordinary claim; it would require extraordinary evidence. It doesn't matter how many people believe it, or how long gullible people the world over have believed it. It is absurd.
If you're goal is to be an advocate for liberty, I'd suggest that this isn't the best way to respond to such arguments. You're trying to convince people, not berate them.
People who claim the necessity of government do have substantial work behind that claim. You might end up rejecting their arguments and evidence--as I ultimately do--but what they have to say isn't nonsense on its face, and these aren't gullible people.
I'm not saying you're wrong, in the end, but the people who disagree with you aren't stupid, they aren't dupes, and wrestling with and taking seriously what they say, in the best versions of it, is demanding, but it's also the only way we libertarians stand a chance of moving the world in our direction.
I consider all sides of an issue, but I'm not going to wake up every morning scared that maybe gravity isn't working today. I'm also not going to wake up and decide that maybe today, theft and aggression are suddenly OK. Statism is stupid and evil. Period.
Now, some places and some times, I will coddle statists more than other times and places. This is neither the time nor the place for it. I'm sick of them justifying theft and aggression because they are too evil/stupid/cowardly to give it up and be civilized. It probably hurts their feelings, but sometimes people need to have their feelings hurt for advocating evil. Some people will wake up no other way, and others won't give it up no matter how nice you are to them.