DARK TO LIGHT & THE PLAN - multi feature rerun about letter after P themes

 

THE LETTER AFTER P - Multi Feature - guess who’s back? - but never really left

 

The Moral High Ground belongs to Libertarians (by Lawrence Vance)

 

The Morality of Libertarianism by Laurence M. Vance

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-morality-of-libertarianism/

October 1, 2015

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that says that people should be free from government interference to live their life any way they desire and engage in any economic activity they choose as long as their actions are peaceful and consensual and they don’t violate the personal or property rights of others. It is that simple. Violence is justified only in defense of person or property against violence. Nonaggression — that is the libertarian creed. And that is the essence of libertarianism. One’s lifestyle has nothing to do with it.

Liberal and conservative smears of libertarianism are legion. Libertarians are said to be naive, utopian, idealistic, materialistic, and nihilistic. They disdain religion and reject tradition. They are disciples of Rousseau. They are too individualistic. They have nostalgia for a fictional past. They have no compassion for the poor. They don’t believe in social justice. They are weak on national security. They are pacifists and isolationists. Libertarianism aspires, like Marxism, to reduce social life to economics. It treats children like adults. It believes that man is inherently good. “Libertarianism,” according to conservative Jonah Goldberg, “is an ideology best suited for young folks. It compellingly tells kids everything they want to be told.” Libertarians “fetishize change, assuming it to be always and everywhere good.”

But above all, liberals and conservatives like to characterize libertarians as libertines and hedonists who celebrate alternative life-styles and don’t believe in moral principles or absolutes. The trump card they play has two sides: libertarians are all moral relativists and libertarianism is immoral.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Libertarianism celebrates things such as individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, and a free society. There is nothing inherently immoral about any of those things.

There are two things generally cited by opponents of libertarianism to “prove” that libertarianism is immoral: the attitude of libertarians toward prostitution and their stand on drug use. Those are always the two sticking points, not because libertarians promote, endorse, defend, or practice them, but because they don’t believe the government should interfere with the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults.

Regarding prostitution, libertarians reason that it if it is legal for a woman to provide free sexual services as often as she wants and to as many people as she wants, then it shouldn’t be illegal for her to charge for performing the same services. Especially since someone’s indirectly paying for sex by paying for dinner and a movie is not a crime.

Regarding drug use, libertarians reason that it makes no sense for the government to wage war on illegal drugs, when tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs kill far more people every year. Tobacco use costs the U.S. economy billions of dollars every year in medical costs and lost productivity and causes hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year from heart disease, stroke, cancer, and smoking-related diseases. Alcohol is also one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. Alcohol abuse is a factor in many drownings; suicides; fires; violent crimes; child-abuse cases; sex crimes; and home, pedestrian, car, and boating accidents. More than 100,000 people die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians. More than two million Americans a year have in-hospital adverse drug reactions. And thousands of people die every year from reactions to aspirin.

But the main reasons libertarians have their attitude toward prostitution and drug use are simply that vices are not crimes and that every crime needs to have a victim. That doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t think the practices are immoral. It just means that they believe that it is not the proper function of government to arrest people for them or seek to limit them.

The vice list used against libertarians used to also regularly include gambling and pornography, but since now almost every state has a lottery, there are casinos scattered all across the country, pornography is available for sale on newsstands, and porn is freely available on the Internet, libertarianism’s detractors don’t much mention those two vices anymore. And how can they? All the gambling and pornography viewing that takes place cannot be laid solely at the feet of libertarians any more than soliciting prostitutes and taking illegal drugs can. No political ideology has a monopoly on vice and bad habits.

Lifestyle libertarians

Some of the criticism of libertarianism is deserved: a small, but vocal, minority of libertarians have unfortunately given liberals and conservatives the impression that libertarianism is a social attitude or lifestyle.

Those libertarians say or imply that libertarians should celebrate change for change’s sake; live an alternative lifestyle; partake of illegal drugs; embrace the feminist movement; support abortion on demand; defend same-sex marriage; celebrate hedonism, licentiousness, and libertinism even if they don’t live that way; do something illegal; view pornography; own a gun; enjoy a particular kind of art; have a particular musical taste; and celebrate diversity for diversity’s sake.

And, at the same time, they also say or imply that libertarians should reject organized religion, not work for a large corporation, not be socially conservative, disdain tradition, and never discriminate.

Whether any of those things is right, wrong, moral, immoral, good, or bad is irrelevant. Libertarians who say or imply them are improperly expanding libertarianism beyond its core nonaggression principle. Libertarianism has nothing to do with anyone’s lifestyle, tastes, vices, sex life, traditions, religion, aesthetics, sensibilities, outlook, or cultural norms. An individual libertarian might be a moral relativist — as might an individual liberal or conservative — but libertarianism as a political philosophy cannot be said to be immoral.

That being said, libertarianism, even narrowly defined, does not oppose the educational efforts, debate, argumentation, media campaigns, organized boycotts, social ostracism, or other nonviolent, noncoercive methods of persuasion of others — libertarians or otherwise — to effect changes in their public and private behavior. It is liberals and conservatives who advocate government aggression and violence against peaceful people’s person or property to achieve some desired end.

Is it moral?

Although they accuse libertarians of being moral relativists, it is liberals and conservatives alike who support the immoral actions of government.

• Is it moral to charge someone with the commission of a crime when there is no victim?
• Is it moral to force some Americans to pay for the health care of other Americans?
• Is it moral to make someone get a license or permission from the government before he can open a business?
• Is it moral to treat vices as crimes?
• Is it moral to incarcerate anyone but violent criminals?
• Is it moral to commit someone to an institution against his will?
• Is it moral to send a soldier to fight an unnecessary and unjust war?
• Is it moral to force people to pay for the education of other people’s children?
• Is it moral to arrest, fine, or imprison someone for using drugs, when alcohol is readily available?
• Is it moral to take money from people without their consent and give it away to foreign governments?
• Is it moral to charge someone with the commission of a crime when no one’s personal or property rights are violated?
• Is it moral for one person to live at the expense of another?
• Is it moral to criminalize marijuana, when tobacco kills tens of thousands every year?
• Is it moral for an immoral government to legislate morality?
• Is it moral to take money from some people and redistribute it to others?
• Is it moral to initiate force against someone who hasn’t himself initiated force against another?
• Is it moral to demand that “the poor” have a right to the earnings of “the rich”?
• Is it moral to lock someone in a cage for years for possessing a plant the government doesn’t approve of?
• Is it moral to sentence someone to life in prison for a drug “crime,” when rapists don’t serve that long?
• Is it moral to force people to contribute to a retirement program?
• Is it moral to force people to be charitable?

I think the answers are obvious.

Is it immoral?

Conservatives and liberals have it backwards; it is violating the tenets of libertarianism that is immoral.

• Is it immoral to let someone keep the fruits of his labor?
• Is it immoral to let someone live and let live?
• Is it immoral for charity, relief, and philanthropy to be voluntary activities?
• Is it immoral to let Americans spend their money however they choose?
• Is it immoral to permit buyers and sellers to freely exchange with each other for mutual gain?
• Is it immoral to allow people to engage in commerce with whomever they choose?
• Is it immoral to let every individual be free to pursue happiness in his own way?
• Is it immoral to believe that the initiation of force to achieve a political, or other goal, is wrong?
• Is it immoral to believe that acts of theft and violence are still wrong when committed by government?
• Is it immoral to allow people to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful?
• Is it immoral for the government to just leave people alone who are not threatening or aggressing against the person or property of others?
• Is it immoral to allow people to participate in any activity with anyone else as long as their behavior is consensual?
• Is it immoral to want everyone — including government — to live by the nonaggression principle?
• Is it immoral to allow people to engage in any economic enterprise or activity of their choosing without getting permission from the government?
• Is it immoral for people to just mind their own business?
• Is it immoral to allow people to associate or not associate with whomever they choose as long as their associations are mutually voluntary?
• Is it immoral to want the government to stay out of people’s bedrooms?
• Is it immoral to allow people to accumulate wealth as long as they don’t defraud anyone?
• Is it immoral to allow people to do business or not do business with whomever they choose?
• Is it immoral to let someone do what he wants with his own property?
• Is it immoral to want to live in a free society?

Again, I think the answers are obvious.

It is liberalism and conservatism that have a morality problem, not libertarianism. It is liberals and conservatives who support the immoral actions of government and demonize genuinely moral impulses. “Libertarians,” as economist Robert Higgs has said, “should never concede the moral high ground to those who insist on coercively interfering with freedom.” 

The War on Private Property By Laurence M. Vance

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/10/laurence-m-vance/the-war-on-private-property/

By Laurence M. Vance

October 18, 2012

This talk was given at the Orange County/Central Florida Campaign for Liberty Monthly Meeting in Orlando, Florida, on October 11, 2012. Do you want to live in an authoritarian society? Do you desire an intrusive government? Do you wish for a government that is a nanny state? Do you yearn for government bureaucrats to tell you what you can and cannot do? Do you like puritanical busybodies telling you how to live your life? Do you believe that the government should define and enforce morality? Do you reason that vices should be crimes? Then you should support the war on drugs. Do you love liberty? Do you treasure freedom? Do you want to live in a free society? Do you prefer government at all levels to be as limited as possible? Do you think people should be responsible for the consequences of their own actions? Do you wish the federal government would at least follow its own Constitution? Do you reason that vices should not be crimes? Then you must oppose the war on drugs. There is no middle ground. The war on drugs is a war on the free market, a free society, and freedom itself. If you oppose drug use, you should oppose the war on drugs even more. If you consider drug abuse to be evil, you should consider the war on drugs to be more evil. If you think that taking drugs is a sin, you should think that the war on drugs is a greater sin. Now, lest there be any misunderstanding, let me make myself perfectly clear. I don’t abuse drugs. I don’t use drugs. And I don’t recommend that anyone else abuse or use them either. But not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else do so whether they are legal or illegal, I would rather see people use drugs than the government wage war on them for doing so. Even though I neither advocate nor condone the use of mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances, I don’t think anyone should support the government’s war on drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, obesity, dietary fat, cholesterol, cancer, tobacco, and salt. And even though I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, I consider the government’s war on drugs to be even more dangerous, destructive, and immoral. Yes, I know I am being redundant. But that’s because some people still just don’t get it. So if I wasn’t clear enough for you, then let me try again: Smoking crack is evil. Getting high on marijuana is a vice. Snorting cocaine is destructive. Shooting up with heroin is sinful. Swallowing ecstasy is immoral. Injecting yourself with crystal meth is dangerous. But as bad as these things are, that doesn’t mean there should be a law against any of them. And it doesn’t matter if those who favor marijuana legalization or drug decriminalization just want to get high without being hassled by the police. The drug war should still be opposed root and branch. Okay, now that you know for sure that I don’t want kids to use drugs, that I would rather air traffic controllers not be high on the job, and that I prefer Americans don’t walk around all day stoned out of their minds, I can talk about the war on drugs and why it is a war on freedom. There was a time in this country when drugs were perfectly legal – all drugs. Just like there was a time in this country when you were free to do what you wanted with your own property without the EPA declaring it a wetland, freely associate with whomever wanted to associate with you, and hire and fire whomever you wanted to. Although drug freedom was drastically reduced by the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, it was President Richard Nixon’s condemnation of drug abuse as American’s “public enemy number one” that really began the war on drugs that wars against our liberties every day. Nixon declared drug use to be a “menace,” an “increasing grave threat,” and a “national emergency.” He appointed the first drug czar and oversaw the establishment of the DEA. He talked of an “effective war” and a “full-scale attack” on the problem of drug abuse to be “faced on many fronts.” The country was used to unconstitutional wars by then. Over 36,000 American soldiers died fighting a “police action” in Korea in the 1950s that began with neither a declaration of war nor the slightest pretense of consulting Congress. The undeclared war in Vietnam, which Nixon inherited and then escalated just like Obama inherited and then escalated the war in Afghanistan, was raging at the time Nixon began his war on freedom we call the war on drugs. The drug war was expanded by Ronald Reagan and the “Just Say No” campaign of the 1980s, reached the height of absurdity under George W. Bush’s Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, and continues unabated under Barack Obama and his crackdowns on medical marijuana dispensaries. And what are the results of this 40-year war on freedom? One result is the huge bureaucracy known as the Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA employs 10,000 government parasites in 226 offices in 21 divisions throughout the United States and 83 foreign offices in 63 countries around the world. There are 300 chemists working for the DEA. The DEA’s Office of Aviation Operations has 100 airplanes and 124 pilots. The agency made almost 31,000 arrests last year. And this is just the federal DEA. Each state has a similar agency. Another result is the increase in violence that is directly correlated with the drug war. I don’t need to tell you about the murder and mayhem that has taken place in Mexico as a result of its president declaring war on Mexico’s drug cartels in 2006. But even if this violence had not spilled over into the United States, all you have to do is look at the gangs, drug lords, and ruined lives in American cities to see the destructive effects of the government’s drug war. When the government bans something, it creates huge financial incentives for people to sell it on the black market. This is exactly what happened during the days of Prohibition. Another result is the United States intervening in yet more countries. It is bad that Mexico is fighting a drug war, but it is even worse that the United States is fighting Mexico’s drug war. The United States has agents from the DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marshal Service, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, TSA, and State Department in Mexico waging war on drugs. And just last month the Associated Press reported that a “team of 200 U.S. Marines began patrolling Guatemala’s western coast this week in an unprecedented operation to beat drug traffickers in the Central America region, a U.S. military spokesman said.” Another result is gross absurdities. Like when a grandmother from Mississippi was arrested in Alabama for making an out-of-state purchase of Sudafed, abused, humiliated, and jailed for 40 days before being released – thanks to George Bush and the Republicans passing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act in 2005. Or like when police in the city of Daytona Beach Shores illegally strip-searched female dancers in front of a group of male officers during a raid on a club because its employees allegedly sold illegal drugs to patrons. Another result is making crimes out of things that have no victims. Every crime needs a victim. Not a potential victim or a possible victim but an actual victim. Having bad habits, exercising poor judgment, engaging in dangerous activities, and committing vices are not crimes. It is on this latter point that Lysander Spooner so famously explained: “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.” Yet another result is an unnecessarily swollen prison population. The United States leads the world in the incarceration rate and in the total prison population. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin “Prisoners in 2009” (the latest year available), there were, at the end of 2009, over 1.6 million prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities. There are almost 350,000 Americans in state or federal prison at this moment because of drug charges. Almost half of those in federal prison are incarcerated because of drug charges. And no wonder, since there is one drug arrest in the United States every 19 seconds. According to the FBI’s latest report, “Crime in the United States,” more than 1.6 million Americans were arrested on drug charges in 2010, with almost half of those arrests just for marijuana possession. Still another result is yet one more failed government program. It is without question that the war on drugs is a failure. In spite of decades of prohibition laws, threats of fines and/or imprisonments, billions of dollars spent, and massive propaganda campaigns, the war on drugs has had no impact on the demand, availability, or use of most drugs in the United States. It has failed to prevent drug abuse. It has failed to keep drugs out of the hands of addicts. It has failed to stop drug overdoses. It has failed to keep drugs away from teenagers. It has failed to stop the violence associated with drug trafficking. It has failed to help drug addicts get treatment. It has failed to prevent the cultivation of marijuana and the making of illicit drugs. It has failed to halt the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. And not only does the $40 billion a year cost of the war on drugs not exceed its supposed benefits, all of the results of the drug war are negative. It has destroyed financial privacy, violated personal privacy, clogged the judicial system, fostered violence, corrupted law enforcement, taken finite law-enforcement resources away from fighting real crime, militarized the local police, resulted in ridiculous sting operations, hindered legitimate pain management, unreasonably inconvenience retail shopping, eroded civil liberties, made a mockery of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments, and last, but certainly not least, the war on drugs has increased the size and scope of government. Clearly, the war on drugs is a monstrous evil that has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. Yet, the drug war enjoys wide bipartisan sponsorship in Congress, is equally supported by both major presidential candidates, is not an issue in any congressional race, is backed by the majority of Americans, is cheered by most religious people, is espoused by most parents with young children, is championed by liberals and conservatives alike, is encouraged by the majority of law-enforcement personnel, and is even defended by those who say they advocate “civil liberties” or “limited government.” The biggest supporters of the drug war are the conservative Republicans who talk the most and the loudest about free markets, limited government, and the Constitution. But how could anyone who said he believed in following the Constitution support the federal government’s war on drugs? One does not have to be a libertarian to recognize that the drug war is incompatible with individual liberty, private property, personal responsibility, free markets, limited government – and the Constitution. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined,” said James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the national government to intrude itself into the personal eating, drinking, or smoking habits of Americans. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the national government to regulate, criminalize, or prohibit the manufacture, sale, or use of any drug. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the national government to restrict or monitor any harmful or mood-altering substances that any American wants to eat, drink, smoke, inject, absorb, snort, sniff, inhale, swallow, or otherwise ingest into his body. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the national government to concern itself with the nature and quantity of any substance Americans want to consume. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the national government to ban anything. If cocaine and heroin were the most dangerous substances known to man, the federal government would still have no more authority to ban them than it would to ban baseball, hot dogs, or apple pie. When the national government sought to prohibit the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” after World War I, it realized that it could only do so by amending the Constitution. That is why the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1919. So why does the Constitution Party candidate for president say: “Without commenting on morality, drug laws should be enforced”? The platform of the Constitution Party is ambiguous. After quoting the Tenth and Fourth Amendments, it says about drugs: “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.” But then it says: “We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.” Does that mean federal legislation or just state legislation? Embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs are things done by the federal government. Does the Constitution Party advocate national action to halt the influx of drugs? Apparently so. But aside from the Constitution, it is simply not the purpose of government to protect people from bad habits, harmful substances, or vice. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so powerfully wrote in Human Action: “Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.” So, what are we to make of conservative Florida politicians like Connie Mack, John Mica, Mike Haridopolis, Jeff Miller, and Allen West? They are enemies of the Constitution if they support the federal war on drugs. And they are also enemies of freedom. Ron Paul took a lot of heat for saying during one of the presidential debates that Americans don’t need government prohibitions against heroin to keep them from using heroin, but he was exactly right. Practically all other politicians see themselves as nannies and overseers entrusted to use the power of government to stamp out vice and keep Americans healthy and safe because they are too stupid to take care of themselves. The war on drugs is an illogical, illegitimate, and unconstitutional function of the federal government. Yet, even some libertarians think that absolute drug freedom is a nice philosophical concept that is fine to intellectually assent to, but should never be talked about publicly. The issue embarrasses some libertarians so much that they would rather not mention it outside of libertarian circles. Again we turn to the wisdom of Mises: “As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.” Even the Libertarian Party presidential candidate is not in favor of absolute drug freedom. Gary Johnson has said although marijuana should be legalized, “harder drugs should not be legalized,” because marijuana “is a big enough step.” Either Johnson is limiting his position to only legalizing marijuana because he is trying to be tactful and not offend too many people that might be inclined to vote libertarian, in which case he is being deceitful, or he actually believes what he says, and I have no reason to think otherwise, and is therefore confused about the nature of libertarianism. The libertarian view on the drug war is simple and consistent: Since it is not the business of government to prohibit, regulate, monitor, restrict, license, limit, or otherwise control what someone wants to eat, drink, smoke, snort, sniff, inhale, inject, swallow, or ingest, then there should be no laws whatsoever regarding the buying, selling, possessing, using, growing, processing, or manufacturing of any drug for any reason. Therefore, not just marijuana, but all drugs should be decriminalized – immediately; all drug laws should be repealed – immediately; all government agencies fighting the drug war should be abolished – immediately; and all those imprisoned solely for drug crimes should be released – immediately. Ending the drug war is not something that needs to be planned out, like say, ending the government-created dependency that is Social Security. The war on drugs is the most senseless and hypocritical of the government’s wars. Have you ever noticed that there is no government ban on alcohol and tobacco? Yes, they are heavily regulated, but anyone is free to drink and smoke as much as he wants in his own home. Yet, alcohol and tobacco use are two of the leading causes of death in the United States. It seems rather ludicrous for the government to outlaw drugs and not outlaw alcohol and tobacco. Everything bad that could be said regarding drug abuse could equally be said of alcohol abuse – and even more so. Alcohol abuse is a factor in many drownings, home accidents, suicides, pedestrian accidents, fires, violent crimes, divorces, boating accidents, child abuse cases, sex crimes, and auto accidents. In fact, the number one killer of young people under twenty-five is alcohol-related car crashes. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is much safer than drinking alcohol. Tobacco use is supposed to cost the U.S. economy nearly $200 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity and cause more than 440,000 premature deaths each year from heart disease, stroke, cancer, or smoking-related diseases. One of the new cigarette warning labels that the FDA tried to institute before being thwarted by a U.S. appeals court said: “Smoking can kill you.” Yet, the number of deaths attributable every year to marijuana smoking is a big fat zero. And the majority of drug overdoses are caused, not by heroin or cocaine, but by prescription opioid painkillers. Most of the negative externalities that result from people’s taking drugs are due to the government’s war on drugs. But in spite of all the hypocrisy and lunacy that is the war on drugs, the drug war continues full speed ahead with no end in sight. Yet, there is no logical or sane reason that a policy like the war on drugs that is so blatantly unconstitutional, that has so trampled on individual liberty, that is such a miserable failure, that has so eroded civil liberties, that has so destroyed financial privacy, and that has fostered so much violence should be supported by so many people. So why is it? I think all the arguments against legalizing drugs can be reduced to three reasons: Using illegal drugs is unhealthy, dangerous, and immoral. I don’t dispute these things. But since doughnuts are unhealthy, parachuting is dangerous, and adultery is immoral – yet no drug warriors support the government waging war on these things – I find their arguments hypocritical, nonsensical, and unconvincing. I think the real reasons are ignorance of the freedom philosophy, looking to government to solve problems, paternalism, and authoritarianism. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” said John Stuart Mill, “is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” In the absence of drug prohibition, drug abuse could be handled the same way as alcohol abuse – by families, friends, religion, Alcoholics Anonymous-type programs, physicians, psychologists, and treatment centers. Wasn’t it conservative icon Ronald Reagan who said: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” The nanny state is at its worse when it comes to the war on drugs. Busybodies in and out of the government think it is their business to mind everyone else’s business. And as C.S. Lewis remarked: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” There are, unfortunately, too many people in the United States – the land of the free – who want to remake society in their own image and compel others to live in ways that they approve of. Did you ever notice that there is no shortage of Americans willing to kill for the military, torture for the CIA, wiretap for the FBI, grope for the TSA, and destroy property for the DEA? The war on drugs is a war on personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, financial privacy, the free market, and the natural right to do “anything that’s peaceful” as long as one is not aggressing against someone else’s person or property. Practical and utilitarian arguments against the drug war are important, and I use them, but not as important as the moral argument for the freedom to use or abuse drugs for freedom’s sake. That’s right: there is a moral case for drug freedom, and I don’t just mean the freedom to get high. The moral case for drug freedom is simply the case for freedom. The theme is freedom. Freedom to use one’s property as one sees fit. Freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor in whatever way one deems appropriate. Freedom to make one’s own health and welfare decisions. Freedom to follow one’s own moral code. Freedom from being taxed to fund government tyranny. Freedom from government intrusion into one’s personal life. Freedom to be left alone. Those of us who advocate absolute drug freedom and a free market in drugs are the ones taking the moral high ground. What is the war on drugs? It is simply government bureaucrats, nanny state do-gooders, and puritanical busybodies telling you want you can and can’t grow, buy, sell, and put in your mouth. And as Mises observed: “It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away.” And as G. K. Chesterton reminds us: “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” The war on drugs is not only incompatible with a free society, it is not a war on drugs at all; it is a war on freedom.

Libertarianism and Value Judgments by Laurence M. Vance

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/libertarianism-and-value-judgments/

 February 1, 2025

Most people on the Left and the Right misunderstand the essence of libertarianism. This should come as no surprise since even some libertarians misunderstand the essence of libertarianism.

The nonaggression principle

The guiding principle undergirding the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the nonaggression principle. As explained by the great libertarian economist and theorist Murray Rothbard (1926–1995):

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

The creed of libertarianism is nonaggression: freedom from aggression and violence against person and property as long as one respects the person and property of others. Aggression is the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud. The nonconsensual initiation of aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong — even when done by government actors. The use of force is justified only in self-defense or retaliation, must be proportional, but is neither essential nor required. And the use of force is only defensible against actual aggression, not because there is a theoretical possibility that someone might commit an aggressive act. Libertarians reject individual and especially government aggression against a nonaggressive individual’s person or property in order to prevent an action from occurring, effect a change in thinking or behavior, compel virtue or charity, achieve some desired end, or punish some peaceful action that is occurring or has already occurred.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism, therefore, as explained by Rothbard “is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.” Libertarianism “is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” Thus, in a libertarian society, that is, a free society,

People are free to pursue happiness in their own way, provided that they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.

People are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful — even if their choices are deemed by others to be harmful, unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, sinful, financially ruinous, destructive, or irresponsible.

People are free to participate in any activity as long as their activities are non-violent, non-disorderly, non-disruptive, non-threatening, and non-coercive.

The voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults is none of the government’s business.

Freedom of voluntary association, discrimination, and conscience are absolute.

Individuals, not society or the government, are the ones who decide what behaviors they want to practice and what risks they are willing to take.

Because there are no such things as nebulous crimes against nature, society, or the state; because vices, immoral actions, dangerous activities, sin, self-harm, and financial irresponsibility should never be considered crimes; and because every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property, the functions of government in a free society should be strictly limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property by prosecuting and exacting restitution only from those individuals who initiate violence against, commit fraud against, coerce, or violate the property rights of others. This means that the government should not transfer our wealth in the name of social justice, fairness, or equality; tax us to fund its boondoggles, military adventures, or programs that compete with the free market; force us to be charitable; compel us to be virtuous; or punish us for doing things that are not aggression, force, coercion, compulsion, threat, or violence.

So, regardless of what many liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists may think about libertarianism, libertarianism is not about libertinism, utilitarianism, rebellion,
indifference, greed, materialism, selfishness, revolution, anarchy, skepticism, atheism, nihilism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, egalitarianism, antinomianism, hedonism, or licentiousness. Libertarianism is not “every man for himself,” “anything goes,” “situation ethics,” “survival of the fittest,” “freedom from all constraints,” “dog eat dog,” “rugged individualism,” or “unfettered capitalism.”

But neither is libertarianism about one’s lifestyle, tastes, sexual proclivities, school of aesthetics, social attitudes, tolerances, values, morals, habits, diet, vices, or personal preferences. There is nothing about libertarianism that is inherently inimical to organized religion, the family, community, an ordered society, tradition, custom, shared values, cultural norms, objective standards of right and wrong, cooperation and collaboration between individuals, the natural law, social institutions, patriotism, the rule of law, or Judeo-Christian ethics. And it is an overly simplistic mischaracterization of libertarianism for libertarians or anyone else to say that libertarians are “economically conservative and socially liberal.” These are things that most nonlibertarians and even some libertarians don’t seem to get, hence the need for this article.

It is only by treating libertarianism as a moral instead of a political philosophy that libertarianism can be said to be an immoral philosophy. But even then, there is nothing inherently immoral about libertarianism, and, in fact, it is impossible for it to be so since libertarianism has no positive precepts or obligatory duties, and makes no assertions about God, religion, human nature, sin, or the afterlife. How could there be something immoral about abstaining from aggression, the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud, and wanting others and the government to do likewise? In fact, it is violating the tenets of libertarianism that is immoral.

Why are not liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists accused of being immoral when they advocate the government forcing some Americans to pay for the education, food, and health care of other Americans? Why do members of these groups not think it immoral for the government to lock people in cages for possessing too much of a plant the government doesn’t approve of? Libertarianism celebrates things such as individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, and a free society. There is nothing inherently immoral about any of these things.

Libertarian positions

Like liberalism, conservatism, and the rest, libertarianism is neutral on whether one buys organic produce, whether one wears a bicycle or motorcycle helmet, whether one recycles, whether one eats red meat, whether one supports local businesses, whether one wears a seatbelt, whether one takes vitamins, whether one is a vegetarian or vegan, or whether one avoids high fructose corn syrup. .

But neither does libertarianism take a position on whether one believes in God, whether one attends church, whether one donates to charity, whether one is religious, whether one believes in life after death, whether one believes in a last judgment, whether one celebrates diversity, whether one votes, whether one salutes the flag, or whether one believes the Bible is the word of God. This lack of positive assertions bothers many who are not libertarians, and especially conservatives. The fact that libertarianism commits its followers to one simple proposition — it is wrong for anyone to initiate violence against anyone else, directly or via the government — is not enough for them.

What really bothers others, again, mainly conservatives, is that libertarianism has no position on things that are considered to be “bad.” Libertarianism takes no position on whether one plays the lottery, whether one gambles at a casino, whether one smokes tobacco or marijuana, whether one commits fornication or adultery, whether one uses profanity, whether one tells racial jokes, whether one reads a horoscope, whether one views pornography, whether one discriminates, or whether one is a homosexual. This doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t think that some of these practices are bad or even immoral. It just means that they believe it is not the proper function of government to interfere with the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults, “bad” as it may be, as long as they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others. Critics of libertarianism — and even some libertarians — have made libertarianism more complex or more expansive than it is.

This is no more evident than when it comes to the subject of value judgments. Most liberals and conservatives complain that libertarians don’t make value judgments while some libertarians complain when they do. In order to understand why this is so, we must first look at economic value theory.

Economic value theory

Libertarians generally have a better grasp of economics than most people of other political persuasions. One reason for this is that they believe that just as people have rights to individual freedom in their personal affairs, so they also have rights to freedom in their economic affairs.

The purpose of economic value theory is to explain the “market value” of goods and services in a free-market economy. The classical economists generally held to a cost or labor theory of value in which the value of a good was viewed as objective and determined by production costs or the amount of labor going into its production. This all changed with the “marginalist revolution” of the 1870s led by economists such as Carl Menger (1840–1921), the founder of the Austrian School of Economics. According to Menger: “Value is thus nothing inherent in goods, no property of them, nor an independent thing existing by itself. It is a judgment economizing men make about the importance of the goods at their disposal for the maintenance of their lives and wellbeing. Hence value does not exist outside the consciousness of men.”

Economic goods do not possess some inherent intrinsic value. According to philosopher, theologian, and economist Ronald Nash (1936–2006):

In the last third of the nineteenth century several economists began to argue that economic value is entirely subjective; it exists in the mind of the person who imputes value to the good or service. If something has economic value, it is because someone values it; it is because that good or service satisfies a human want.

The value of any economic good is no more and no less than what some individual will offer in exchange for it.

Subjective valuation is the basis of all economic activity. And because value is subjective, it cannot be measured. As explained by economist Thomas Taylor:

The explanation of all economic activity that takes place in the market economy ultimately rests on the subjective theory of value. The value of various consumer goods and services does not reside objectively and intrinsically in the things themselves, apart from the individual who is making an evaluation. His valuation is a subjective matter that even he cannot reduce to objective terms or measurement.

But subjective value is not arbitrary value. According to economist Per Bylund: “‘Subjectivity’ is colloquially used as a reference to something that is without explanation, seemingly random, and without basis. This is not what the term means, however. It simply means that something is personal rather than necessarily shared and equally understood by everyone.” And as Nash reminds us:

The theory of subjective economic value does not imply that all economic choices are equally good in a moral or religious sense. Anyone is within his philosophical and theological rights to criticize particular economic choices. No defender of the market economy is required to defend all the goods produced by the market.

The fact that all value is relative and subjective does not mean that all values are relative and subjective.

Value judgments

Conservative Nathan Schlueter of Hillsdale College has accused libertarians of seeking “to avoid the question of whether there are any wrongful actions other than coercion” and of essentially denying “that both self-regarding harms and moral harms exist.” But just because libertarianism holds that all economic values are subjective does not mean that libertarians also have to believe that every action that is uncoerced is commendable; that all movies, art, music, literature, recreational activities, and sporting events are of identical importance; that there is good in every culture, religion, and tradition; or that all career or lifestyle choices are essentially morally equivalent. Schlueter is right in one respect. The apparent hesitancy on the part of libertarians to identify wrongful actions and harms is cautiously pragmatic because when liberals and conservatives talk about something being wrong or harmful, they almost always conclude that state action should be initiated to remedy it.

But on the other hand, some libertarians are opposed to libertarians making value judgments at all, especially if they involve characterizations, generalizations, or stereotypes. They are imposing the subjective valuation of sound economics on personal value judgments. Consider the following hypothetical value judgments:

•  Rap and Hip-Hop music are trash
•  Interracial marriage is abnormal
•  Women shouldn’t participate in boxing or MMA
•  Homosexuality is a mental disorder
•  Illegal immigrants are criminals
•  Women shouldn’t serve in the military
•  It is a sin for couples to live together before marriage
•  Mohammad was a false prophet
•  Some races have lower IQs than others
•  Women who work in strip clubs are prostitutes
•  Homelessness is a choice
•  Viewing pornography is immoral
•  Transgender women should not play on women’s sports teams
•  Feminist is a polite term for lesbian
•  Religion X is a false religion
•  Being in a polyamorous relationship is immoral
•  Men who wear earrings are probably bisexual or homosexual
•  Women who get tattoos are probably sexually promiscuous
•  Only a fool would buy a lottery ticket
•  Drag queens are disgusting individuals
•  Modern art is garbage

Most of these value judgments are very provocative, and deliberately so. My point is that libertarians are free to make value judgments that are just as controversial, polemical, opinionated, contentious, questionable, dubious, or “wrong” as everyone else, and attempt to persuade others to accept their opinion just like everyone else. One would think that libertarians — who value freedom of thought and liberty of conscience — would get this. Libertarians don’t have to be indifferent to the choices that people make with their freedom. The difference between libertarians and everyone else is that libertarians who, hypothetically, might make such value judgments could not also — without violating the tenets of libertarianism — force anyone to accept their views, aggress against the person or property of those with contrary views, advocate government intervention to impose their views and therefore prohibit or punish certain activities, or make value judgments a part of their political philosophy.

A subset of these libertarians, as Tom Woods has pointed out, “have taken it upon themselves to validate every misunderstanding the public might have about our philosophy” and “wage war on bourgeois institutions and tradition.” And, I might add, Western civilization and the patriarchal society as well, usually out of a concern for the leftist tropes of “social justice” and combating “structural oppression.” Decriminalization of peaceful, consensual, private activity that is nonthreatening and noncoercive is not enough, these libertarians say. It must also be destigmatized and even normalized. Woods mentions a post by one such libertarian: “I don’t want sex work to be decriminalized, I want it to be normalized. I want hiring a sex worker to be seen as no different than getting private piano lessons or a massage. I want sex work to be accessible and recognized as a valuable community resource.” Woods comments: “If you want to say that voluntary interactions between consenting adults should not be criminalized, you’ll hear no objection from me. But if you hope to see ‘sex work’ thought of on the same level as ‘piano lessons,’ well, that’s your private project, and should not be confused with libertarianism.” Vices are not crimes, as Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) reminded us, but this does not mean that they are valuable community resources. Some things are, in fact, a net negative for society (alcoholism, drug abuse, illegitimacy), but this doesn’t mean that they should be criminalized. And toleration of alternative lifestyles does not necessarily have to mean acceptance, and certainly not inclusion.

Conclusion

Libertarianism should not be expanded beyond what it is, by libertarians or anyone else. It should not be fused with any personal preference or extraneous ideology. And it should not be compromised by imposing a slate of approved opinions on top of its core teaching.

The Simplicity of Libertarianism by Laurence M. Vance

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-simplicity-of-libertarianism/

June 1, 2015

Libertarianism has been defined as an ethical system that seeks to preserve the liberty of individuals and as a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. These are two sides of the same coin.

As libertarianism’s greatest theorist, Murray Rothbard, explained,

Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

It is that simple.

Libertarianism is not …

Yet, some people still just don’t get it. The simplicity of libertarianism is a stumbling block to them. And because some have made libertarianism more complex by confusing it with certain elements of liberalism or conservatism, reading into it what they think it means, expanding it beyond what it professes to be, blaming it for market “failures,” ascribing to it what its critics have falsely said about it, or equating it with the absence of morality, myths regarding libertarianism abound. It should be therefore noted that —

• Libertarianism is not libertinism.
• Libertarianism is not amoral.
• Libertarianism is not indifference to the plight of the poor or less fortunate.
• Libertarianism is not just about economics.
• Libertarianism is not a lifestyle.
• Libertarianism is not utopian.
• Libertarianism is not about greed and selfishness.
• Libertarianism is not pacifism.
• Libertarianism is not “dog eat dog.”
• Libertarianism is not about making the government more efficient.
• Libertarianism is not hedonism or licentiousness.
• Libertarianism is not being naive about human nature.
• Libertarianism is not atheistic or materialistic.
• Libertarianism is not some particular school of aesthetics.
• Libertarianism is not “every man for himself.”
• Libertarianism is not privatization.
• Libertarianism is not being socially liberal and economically conservative.
• Libertarianism is not egalitarianism.
• Libertarianism is not antinomian.
• Libertarianism is not inimical to tradition or religion.
• Libertarianism is not “survival of the fittest.”
• Libertarianism is not “the free market.”
• Libertarianism is not “low-tax liberalism.”
• Libertarianism is not anarchy.
• Libertarianism is not “unfettered capitalism.”
• Libertarianism is not limited government.
• Libertarianism is not a social attitude.
• Libertarianism is not rebellion against all authority.
• Libertarianism is not acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

Libertarianism celebrates individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free markets, free thought, and a free society.

It is that simple.

The principle undergirding the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the nonaggression principle. Again, as Rothbard explains,

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

The nonaggression principle is designed to prohibit someone from infringing upon the liberty of another. It is the core premise and linchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. Aggression is the initiation of nonconsensual violence, the threat of nonconsensual violence, or fraud. The initiation of aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong. Force is justified only in defense or retaliation, but is neither essential nor required.

It is that simple.

A libertarian society

In a libertarian society, people are free to live and let live.

In a libertarian society, it is legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided that he not threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.

In a libertarian society, every individual is free to pursue happiness in his own way — even if his choices are deemed by others as harmful, unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, unwise, stupid, or irresponsible.

In a libertarian society, people are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful.

In a libertarian society, people are free to participate in any activity with anyone else as long as their behavior is consensual.

In a libertarian society, people are free to associate with, discriminate against, do business with, and interact with anyone (or no one) as long as their association and business are voluntary and their discrimination and interaction are peaceful.

In a libertarian society, individuals, groups, and businesses are perfectly free to associate, discriminate, interact, and conduct business for any reason and on any basis — regardless of how illogical, irrational, or unreasonable the reasons are perceived to be or how stereotypical, prejudicial, or biased the bases are perceived to be.

In a libertarian society, people are free to engage in any economic enterprise or activity of their choosing without license, permission, restriction, interference, or regulation from government as long as they don’t commit violence against others, violate their property rights, or defraud them.

In a libertarian society, people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor and decide for themselves what to do with their money — whether that means save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, hoard it, or waste it.

In a libertarian society, people are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can as long as they do it peaceably and without committing fraud.

In a libertarian society, buyers and sellers are free to exchange with each other for mutual gain any product of their choosing for any price.

In a libertarian society, charity, relief, and philanthropy are entirely voluntary activities.

In a libertarian society, individuals, organizations, and businesses are responsible for their actions that negatively affect others.

It is that simple.

One major difference between libertarians and libertarian-leaning liberals, conservatives, and fellow travelers is that libertarians extend the nonaggression principle to government. Libertarians oppose or otherwise seek to limit the intervention, regulation, and control of governments, which, after all, are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle, personal liberty, and property rights. Those who are not libertarians believe that it is appropriate for government to punish people for engaging in entirely peaceful, voluntary, and consensual actions that do not aggress against the person or property of others. But as Rothbard also stated, “Libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic to government in the same way as almost everyone would apply such an ethic to every other person or institution in society.” They “make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government.”

It is that simple.

In a libertarian society, the only legitimate purpose of government is to prosecute and punish those who initiate violence against others, commit fraud against them, or violate their property rights.

In a libertarian society, government actions beyond judicial and policing functions to keep the peace are themselves unpeaceful and in violation of the nonaggression principle.

In a libertarian society, vices are not crimes and incarceration is limited to violent criminals only.

In a libertarian society, the government leaves those alone who don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.

In a libertarian society, the government doesn’t legislate morality.

In a libertarian society, every crime needs a victim.

In a libertarian society, freedom is not the absence of morality, the rule of law, or tradition; it is the absence of government paternalism.

In a libertarian society, actions are prohibited that involve the initiation of violence against persons (murder, manslaughter, rape, assault) or property (burglary, robbery, embezzlement, shoplifting, vandalism, trespassing, arson) and permitted that don’t.

In a libertarian society, behavior that some consider to be immoral, unsafe, addictive, unhealthy, risky, sinful, or destructive (drug use, alcohol use, skydiving, smoking, using pornography, bungee jumping, adultery, sodomy, boxing, gambling, prostitution, et cetera) is none of the government’s business.

In a libertarian society, what is considered immoral, unethical, or sinful is the domain of conscience, family, and religion, not puritanical busybodies, nanny-statists, or government bureaucrats.

It is that simple.

A libertarian society is a free society.