Libertarianism is a political philosophy grounded on these propositions: Adult individuals have the right and responsibility to decide important matters about their own lives, but they may not infringe on the equal rights of others. Government’s role is to secure those rights. The key word, from the Declaration of Independence, is “secure,” not “grant.” We do not get our rights from government. Individuals have natural rights, independent of government. That’s a bedrock libertarian principle and, it’s fair to say, the Founders were libertarians.
Within that framework, consider the polemic against libertarianism by Rev. Michael P. Orsi (“Libertarian Candidate Not Good,” Naples Daily News, March 16) — as reduced to five assertions:
Unlike liberals and conservatives, libertarians have a consistent, minimalist view of the proper role of government.
1. “Extreme individualism” is contrary to
the “common good.”
Libertarians understand the necessity of cooperation to attain
personals goals. My colleague, Tom Palmer, observes that
individuals can “never actually be self-sufficient, which is
precisely why we must have rules to make peaceful cooperation
possible.” Government enforces those rules. The risk,
however, is that rules too extensive will produce, not a common
good for all, but rather a veneer for a system of special favors to
secure largesse for the politically connected at the expense of
others. By contrast, individualism promotes the common good,
spontaneously, as long as no commanding power preempts freely
chosen actions.
2. Belief in “every man for himself” is
incompatible with “concern for the poor.”
From an ethical perspective, it may be morally right to help the
poor; but in a completely free society we should have a political
right not to do so. Put differently, a theory of justice is not
always congruent with a theory of politics. One can condemn bad
conduct without empowering government to take remedial action. Yes,
charity is a virtue. But government-compelled charity is a
contradiction in terms — a political act that negates real
charity, which must be voluntary, not coerced.
As it happens, the evidence proves conclusively that more wealth, including a greater abundance for the poor, is a by-product of individual liberty.
3. Government intervention is sometimes necessary
— for example, “to prevent
monopolies.”
Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations,
sensible compromises of civil liberties to enhance national
security, or even selective gun controls. Moreover, we recognize
that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The proper
comparison is not “unfettered” freedom versus a
perfectly managed world. Instead, the relevant tradeoff is free
markets versus the reality of government intervention. No doubt,
government occasionally does good things. But the equation
isn’t complete without considering the bad things that
inevitably accompany the good.
With respect to monopolies, true barriers to economic enterprise arise from government misbehavior, not private power. Special-interest legislation and misconceived regulatory regimes protect existing producers from competition. Exclusive licenses to privileged rivals nurture monopolies at public expense. Targeted tax benefits, subsidies, guarantees, and loans; or tariffs and quotas to protect domestic companies from foreign imports, spawn the same anti-competitive environment that antitrust laws are meant to foreclose. Corporations exploit the law — consorting with members of Congress, their staffers, and the best lobbying firms that money can buy. Too often, that’s the practical consequence of government intervention.
4. “Isolationism” cannot be reconciled with
our “obligation to help weaker nations.”
Paradoxically, conservatives, who are justifiably skeptical about
the efficacy of government in domestic matters, are eager to
embrace a more expansive role for government overseas, in the name
of national greatness. Even after Vietnam, Iraq, and our endless
war in Afghanistan, interventionists are fixated on exporting
democracy — urging military responses to sometimes-illusory
crises. The result has been imperial wars, American lives lost, and
wealth transfers to corrupt dictators. That’s not a foreign
policy a libertarian can support.
5. Same-sex marriage and drug legalization are at odds
with “truly conservative principles.”
It’s nice to end on a note of agreement. The libertarian
position on same-sex marriage and drug legalization is indeed
liberal, not conservative — even as our position on fiscal
issues is conservative, not liberal. Does that mean libertarians
are philosophically inconsistent? No, it means conservatives and
liberals are. Conservatives want smaller government in the fiscal
sphere, but they condone bigger government when it comes to empire
building and regulating personal behavior. Liberals want fewer
government restrictions in the social sphere, but they embrace
strict limits on economic liberty.
Unlike liberals and conservatives, libertarians have a consistent, minimalist view of the proper role of government. We want government out of our wallets, out of our bedrooms, and out of foreign entanglements unless America’s vital interests are at stake.
