Phil Elmore: Individual Authoring Services

Why I am NOT a Libertarian
By Phil Elmore

To view a clarification on the tools of persuasion as mentioned in this essay, click here.

Once, an online friend ("Chaos," referenced in my reply) asked me what I thought of Peter Schwarz's essay, Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty. At the time, I considered myself a Libertarian. This was my reply:

I just purchased a copy of The Voice of Reason over the weekend, without remembering that you'd mentioned the book in this thread, Chaos. When I discovered the Schwarz essay I was delighted, and read it with interest.

To answer your original questions, I believe Schwarz was indeed accurate in his depiction of the Libertarianism of [the] day, though I think he displayed the heavy-handed penchant for dire condemnations that has so characterized Objectivism (and was, of course, the reason The Objectivist Center people split from Rand's tribe in what is to this day the primary denominational split in Objectivism).

What he seems to forget is that while the loosely-knit coalition of Libertarians then and now do not have Rand's consistent and well-thought-out morality to guide them, taking the non-initiation of force as a kind of breathless axiom on which to base a far-reaching philosophy, it is not an anarchist movement -- at least not now. As embodied by the Libertarian Party it's a political movement that opposes Statism while recognizing that the government does indeed have a role to play (a role properly defined and limited by the Constitution).

In that respect I think Libertarianism has improved over the years: it has acknowledged Rand's influence and is populated by current or former-Objectivists; it has well-defined anti-Statist goals defined by the Constitution; it pushes for a division between the State and the Individual such that in a free society, you should be free to be stupid -- something that Rand would never allow.

That's the key, really: an Objectivist utopia would have laws enforcing Rand's morals of reason; a Libertarian utopia would have fewer laws still, allowing the individual to decide on what he or she chooses to build his or her morality. Obviously, there will be those who choose foolishly; in a free society, it is your right to be stupid, though if you hurt someone else in so doing you must be punished swiftly and severely.

What is legal and what is moral should be two different things; your moral filter should be much tighter than that applied by law. That is why my morality is Objectivist-based, but I call my political principles libertarian: I want to be free to make the choice, and I don't think it's the business of my government to do it.

Objectivists deride Libertarians as everything from anarchists to closet anti-liberty monsters; Libertarians consider Objectivists to be Conservatives (one of the worst insults in the Libertarian lexicon after "Statist" and "Socialist" and [even to some conservative Libertarians] "Democrat").

Me, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Pure Objectivists, Rabid Libertarians, and folks like me who don't see why the two can't be reconciled, ought to be able to get along just fine.

Ayn Rand wrote that "What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an 'open mind', but an active mind -- a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically." It is in that spirit -- of having an "active mind," of continuing to learn -- that I no longer consider myself a Libertarian, despite the fact that I once did.

Quite frankly, I was wrong.

I now understand that Libertarianism isn't a philosophy. Rather, it is a broad political outlook. Each human being needs a philosophy -- and, quite frankly, simply considering one's self a Libertarian doesn't provide enough guidance.

To put it another way, Libertarianism is a conglomeration of outlooks that, taken together, say, "Hey, as long as you're not hurting anyone, it's none of my business." But by embracing that concept to its fullest and most consistent extent, one grants tacit approval to any and all ideas and actions -- including those that must be condemned.

I still believe in a minimal State, for both philosophical and utilitarian reasons. I still believe in the ideals of freedom and liberty. But I also believe in a developed system of ethics derived from the philosophy of Objectivism (and from my personal spiritual views).

In keeping with the maintenance of a minimal State, I still believe that what is legal and what is moral are and should be two different things. But embracing a minimal state demands the acceptance of a willingness to exercise an ever-vigilant sense of moral judgment. It is our duty to judge, to speak out, to rail against that which is immoral, and to do our best to persuade our fellow human beings to agree with us. Human beings can deal with one another through reason or force, through persuasion or coercion. I advocate a vigorous pursuit of persuasion. You must seek to convince your fellow humans to stop doing what is wrong or immoral and to start doing what is right. If you embrace a life-affirming system of ethics, you have no other choice.

Too often, a Libertarian outlook lends itself to a casual "anything goes" attitude. It is futile to attempt to police the consensual activities of consenting adults when those activities are outside the sphere of your personal influence -- but you must do what you can to promote that which is right whenever immoral acts or ideas cross your path. Libertarianism fosters the idea that if you're not a direct party to something, it's not your problem and it's not your business. But if you are a human being, it is your problem. Right and wrong do exist. They are absolute and objective. They are your business.

To say that I am a Libertarian who possesses a morality based on something else is not enough. Politics is philosophy applied to government -- and your philosophy is the source of your morality.

Libertarianism is not the enemy of liberty -- but it is the enemy of moral judgment, for from a consistent Libertarian standpoint, however passively, we have no grounds on which to evaluate that which must be judged. Libertarianism does lack a coherent philosophical foundation as a political movement. The collection of historical and contemporary thought on Natural Law and the rights of human beings is very valuable, but without a developed system behind them, these ideas will not have the force necessary to overcome either their ideological opponents or their internal gaps in morality.

I do not advocate empowering the State to micromanage the lives of a free people. However, I do advocate the promotion of positive ethics through active persuasion. Logic, reason, rhetoric, persistence, even volume: these are the tools of persuasion, and we must use them. Many Libertarians come to their political outlook by way of the philosophy of Objectivism. I came to Libertarianism through Objectivism, and then came back.

I am not a Libertarian.