Advocates for Self Government

1010 N Tennessee St
Suite 215
Cartersville, GA
30120-8528

Phone

(770) 386-8372

Fax

(770) 386-8373

Orders & Donations

(800) 932-1776

Quick Contact

info@theadvocates.org

Member Login

Communicating Liberty - The best tips and tools for spreading freedom

Telling How Libertarians Are Different from Liberals and Conservatives

Published January 09, 2012 in Talking Points by Sharon Harris

Recently, Liberator Online editor James W. Harris was trying to think of a way to explain libertarianism to a child. The child, though smart, was ignorant of most political concepts.

He thought over his usual stock of answers, and found them lacking in this situation.

Finally he came up with something like this:

"Liberals and conservatives both believe the government should force peaceful people, at gunpoint if necessary, to live the way they think they should. Libertarians are against this."

He followed that with a more familiar libertarian definition:

"We think people should be free to do as they wish with their lives and property, as long as they aren't harming anyone else."

The first paragraph of his definition is one I'd never heard before. There are several useful things about it.

* It makes libertarians stand out distinctly from all other political viewpoints.

* It puts non-libertarians in the position of defending and justifying their advocacy of violence. This is a valuable switch, as usually it is libertarians who, right from the start, find themselves in the position of defending the elimination of various government programs.

* It is a definition that immediately invites a nod of agreement and appreciation. Most people, after all, don't consciously advocate the initiation of force, and don't realize that's inherent in liberalism and conservatism.

* It makes libertarianism sound downright moderate and reasonable. The immoderate, unreasonable ones are those who would use violence to force peaceful people to live the way they think they should. They are the bullies; we are the ones who defend them against the bullies.

Every libertarian should have an excellent answer memorized for this common question, "What do libertarians believe?" (You can find some suggestions here.

This particular formulation is not a perfect answer for all occasions, by any means. But it may be a useful addition to your libertarian communication toolbox.

Showing 10 Comments

Pubilshed January 09, 2012 by David Johnson

I disagree with the "at gunpoint if necessary". Liberals and conservatives don't think in those terms, and teaching your children that is a huge disservice to their education. It may be true that physical violence is the underlying foundation of all government, but it's naked force is wrapped in many insulating layers of clothing. It is a gross mis-characterization of liberals and conservatives to portray them as violent bullies.

Pubilshed January 09, 2012 by Nick C

@David Johnson: They may not "think in those terms," but how in the world does that change that they are indeed advocating violence against peaceful individuals? Not thinking about that as they are doing it makes them not only bullies, but fools as well.

Pubilshed January 09, 2012 by m1tch3ll

David, what happens if you don't pay your taxes? You are taken to jail under threat of physical violence if you resist. I believe in funding certain government functions, but there is nothing inherently incorrect in that definition.

Pubilshed January 09, 2012 by Rand

There's something to be said for calling a spade a spade rather than cloaking it in comfortable-sounding euphamisms. The initial shock value causes them to question what you say, then when you explain all the escalating levels of violence when you resist, culminating in the ultimate violence at the point of the gun, it makes them think about the whole process. I agree that it's not necessary to use those terms when speaking to a child, and should use something a bit tamer, but adults can certainly handle that kind of language.

Pubilshed January 09, 2012 by Ray

Gunpoint,rubber bullets,water spray or pepper spray threat... it's all the same thing. Fear of harm, even if it is only financial, is used everyday. Government bullies! Not to many "occupies" around any more.

Pubilshed January 11, 2012 by Chuck Donovan

Just because they don't want to admit it, doesn't make it untrue. At some point Republisames and Demosames have to be confronted with their hypocrisy. They may claim "voluntary compliance" all they want, but their "compassion" always comes down to badges, jails, and guns.

Pubilshed January 12, 2012 by Brandon Lewis

While perhaps useful as a conversation starter, the assertion that libertarianism is against the use of force is not an accurate definition of the political philosophy. Perhaps it is a valid definition of a moral philosophy, but all political philosophies ultimately rest on some level of state monopolization of force. Let us not forget that, at the end of the day, political philosophy is about how to best wield the power conferred by the monopolization of force. A much stronger argument to my mind would be to point out that in a world where we will always have state monopolization of force, libertarianism can be the least worse option that still preserves many of the benefits of a more strictly organized society. Overly simplified and strident arguments like this are not only not going to win very many thinking converts, but they will turn away many sympathizers as well.

Pubilshed January 12, 2012 by someguy

Unless you are a complete anarchist, you are still in favor of government enforcement at gunpoint if necessary. How many people think murderers shouldn't be arrested? Libertarians want people to live the way THEY think they should, same as everyone else. Just because you or I agree, or this viewpoint confers more personal freedom, doesn't make it any less true. Sorry for being completely off-topic, but the "at gunpoint" reminded me. It amazes me that democrats ever get elected, because if you held most libertarians (and their entire extended familes, etc.) at gunpoint and forced them to choose the lesser of two evils, they would usually choose republican. But the funny thing is repeat the same exercise with authoritarians and they would choose republican also. Just thought it was interesting.

Pubilshed January 13, 2012 by David Schmidt

@someguy You may have missed the word "peaceful" in Mr. Harris' description of liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives advocate the use of force against peaceful individuals. Libertarians do not. Murderers and others who commit aggression are not peaceful; small-government libertarians certainly would not object to government enforcing laws against murder. In fact, many small-government libertarians believe that protecting people from aggression is the only legitimate function of government. And, actually, no, I don't think people should live any particular way. For example, I would have no objection to somebody joining a cult that controlled the minutia of their daily lives and demanded half their income (they could even call it a "government" and hold "elections" for cult leader if it made them happy) as long as they didn't try to force me to join as well. That's the point of Mr. Harris' description of libertarians: that people should be free to live as they wish as long as they don't commit aggression against peaceful people.

Pubilshed January 15, 2012 by MoreFreedom

To David Johnson, The "at gunpoint if necessary" applies to all government laws. If you don't follow the law and are indicted, tried and convicted, you will be fined or jailed, at gunpoint if necessary. You just can't walk away from a government requirement, and if you resist, you'll find government using force against you, and if you resist with guns you'll likely be shot and killed by government agents. This includes not paying your overdue library fines (search on google for many examples of this). https://www.google.com/search?q=jail+for+overdue+library+books&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a You appear to be a liberal who doesn't recognize the violence of government, because it conflicts with your starry eyed view that government is good. Some psychiatrists say liberalism is a mental disorder, because it refuses to recognize reality. You appear to be one of them. Government is not good, but it is necessary to protect our liberties from criminals, and hopefully from government officials as well.

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Add Comment

You commenting as a guest Sign in

Get your own Gravatar