By Thomas L. Knapp
Of all descriptions of political libertarianism, “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” is probably the best in both brevity and frequency of use.
This is especially useful in election years, when Libertarian presidential candidates typically face high barriers to accessing the media, limiting their opportunities to appeal to “low-information voters” with their elevator pitch for a smaller, lower-cost, less intrusive, less combative government.
It’s concise. It’s easy to understand, even if not always accurate. It ties into two of America’s most mainstream and popular political trends. What’s not to like?
But I don’t use that slogan much. I don’t think it’s very accurate. I know plenty of libertarians who are “socially conservative” (often but not always due to personal religious beliefs) and “fiscally liberal” (often but not always due to historical analysis of corporations, taxation, and other phenomena). Also, an op-ed allows for a little more elaboration than a politician’s elevator pitch. So please, stick around.
What distinguishes libertarianism from other political ideologies is not just its utilitarian or consequentialist insistence on “what works best.”
What distinguishes libertarianism from other political ideologies is its moral claim: the claim that using force is wrong.
It’s probably a moral argument that you grew up with as an individual.
The people who shaped your worldview as a child — your parents, your teachers — likely taught you libertarianism as your basic personal morality. In the words of The Libertarian author Matt Kibbe, “Don’t hurt people and don’t take what other people have.” These are words to keep in mind in life.
Libertarians extend their moral demands to all people and all institutions, including governments.
Just as it is wrong for me to steal $50 from your wallet, it is also wrong for the government to steal $50 from your paycheck.
Just as it is wrong for me to burn down your house or shoot you for any reason other than self-defense, it is wrong for the government to use violence against non-violent people.
That’s all there is to it, insofar as a “social contract” can actually be said to exist: that is, not to hurt people and not to take what belongs to others, and in return we don’t have to tolerate others hurting us and taking what belongs to us.
You are free to believe what you want to believe as long as you don’t force your beliefs on others.
Libertarianism is a “deontological” (morality-based) position rather than a “consequentialist” (outcome-based) one.
But fortunately, this is not a “may the heavens fall but justice will be done” position, because the heavens will not fall when this position is applied: it actually produces better results than state edicts backed by force.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t easily translate into the “elevator pitch”/”poorly informed voter” environment of electoral politics.
But if you’ve read this far, you’re now an informed voter who’s stepped off the elevator. Don’t forget this come November.
Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
