Nick Gillespie’s Five Myths About Libertarians

Nick Gillespie of Reason had an op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday on Five Myths About Libertarians. Here’s my take on these alleged myths, which generally have some degree of truth but are not necessarily completely true:

1. Libertarians are a fringe band of “hippies of the right.”

The classic description that libertarians who have smoked marijuana is true (even if simplistic) about many but certainly not all. There are libertarians on the left and right, but this doesn’t have as much electoral significance as Gillespie suggests when writing:

Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties. In September 2012, the Reason-Rupe Poll found that about one-quarter of Americans fall into the roughly libertarian category of wanting to reduce the government’s roles in economic and social affairs. That’s in the same ballpark as what other surveys have found and more than enough to swing an election.

Looking beyond the likelihood that a Reason poll might tilt the questions and definitions towards such a finding, there are vast differences between right-libertarians and left-libertarians. Sure, if there was a Democratic candidate who is terrible (as very many are) on civil liberties and social issues it is conceivable I might vote for a libertarian Republican for the Senate who might provide a strong voice for some issues I support. Of course this would not include someone like Rand Paul. Left-libertarians see the issues which impact individual liberty far differently from right-libertarians, many of whom don’t even support abortion rights. Left-libertarians disagree with right-libertarians as to the importance of some regulation of the economy, realizing that markets are human inventions which require regulation to function. Many of the left-libertarians who are not thrilled with ObamaCare prefer a single payer system which directly conflicts with the core values of right libertarians. There is simply a huge gap between different people who might be lumped together as libertarians in such a poll.

Left-libertarians and right-libertarians are unlikely to join together to swing an election, but there is hope that the two could exert pressure on both Republicans and Democrats to change some of their policies in areas where the two groups agree.

2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.

Few outside the libertarian movement really buy their claims that libertarianism helps the poor. Democratic economic policies may not be libertarian (nor are they socialist) but the historical fact remains that the economy does better under Democrats. As opposed to the right wing view of trickle-down economics, a rising tide under Democrats is more likely to raise all ships. Where this doesn’t work, the social safety-net which libertarians oppose remains necessary. On the other hand I do agree with Gillespie to a degree that there are areas where it would be beneficial to reduce regulations on small business. That said, I run a small business and do manage to survive with all the regulations in place.

Gillespie is right about the drug war, which is largely a war on poor minorities. What other result is possible after you imprison minorities for drug possession, and then release them from prison with a criminal record which makes it very difficult to ever get a  job?

3. Libertarianism is a boys’ club.

He is right here. There have been prominent libertarians among libertarian intellectual leaders. I have known female libertarians. They do exist.

4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.

As I mentioned above, it is a favorable characteristic that libertarians oppose the drug war (which is not the same as supporting drug use). Having thirty percent of libertarians opposing abortion rights is a negative.

Saying any political group is anti-religion is likely to be fallacious. Republicans have often claimed Democrats are anti-religion but the percentage of atheists among Democrats is fairly low (even if  higher than among Republicans). The difference is that liberals who are religious see religion far differently than conservatives, and do not have the desire to use government to impose their religious views upon others.

Some libertarians are quite hostile to religion. Ayn Rand (who didn’t actually consider herself part of the libertarian movement) has writings as  hostile towards religion as to socialism (which in her mind would include the views of Democrats). On the other hand, there are some called libertarians such as Ron Paul and Rand Paul who support many of the views of the religious right, and whose  philosophy is not one I would consider to be pro-freedom. I have discussed Ron Paul’s anti-freedom views at length here. People of the old right such as Ron Paul also carry much of their baggage including racism, creating further problems when considering libertarians and minorities.

5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

On the one hand Republicans do need a reboot in their ideas. It is a good sign when some Republicans join some Democrats on issues such as opposing violations of privacy rights from NSA surveillance programs. On the other hand, opposing all government activity regardless of importance just pulls Republicans further from mainstream views.

 

Please Share

3 Comments

  1. 1
    JimZ says:

    Good piece.  It does a good job beginning to distinguish the definitions of “freedom” between libertarians and, well, most people.  A great recent example is the George Mason University “study” which purports to compare “freedom” among the 50 states:
    http://www.statepolicyindex.co.....50-states/
    This libertarian framing conveniently leaves out the features of society that provide actual freedom (like whether residents of those states have adequate access to health services), and includes such ridiculous things as whether teachers need to be qualified, ambient smoking regulations, and whether the state conducts sobriety checkpoints.
    Libertarianism keeps demonstrating its cult-like nature, and if anything, gets sillier as each year passes.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Obviously the definition of freedom is unclear and varies with different people.

    Libertarians would define freedom as it applies to government restrictions on liberties and would not see lack of access to health care as being a restriction on freedom. I have no problem with using their definition in such a situation. However if we don’t consider access to health care when considering freedom, this would mean that things beyond freedom need to be considered when evaluating government action. Libertarianism doesn’t account for the idea that government action might be beneficial–unless it is doing something they want.

  3. 3
    JimZ says:

    I’ve never considered (local) laws prohibiting smoking in buildings “restrictions on liberties,” but rather an enhancement on the freedoms of the vast majority of people who do not wish to experience the pain, suffering and shorter lives that comes from breathing second-hand smoke.  [I'm old enough to remember a time when there were NO such restrictions, anywhere, and to me it was akin to a living hell, or at least a slow death, to try to function in that society]  And the idea that peoples’ “liberties are being restricted” when police agencies set up sobriety checkpoints on Summer weekend evenings, so that my daughter is not killed by a drunk driver – these are examples of why I refer to libertarianism as a cult.

Leave a comment