Given the surge in interest in libertarianism during the past few years, it is amazing to me that one must still lecture the New York Times on the subject but, alas, such is the case. In an article on the Roman Polanski child-rape case entitled “The Polanski Case: A Gallic Shrug” by the paper’s columnist Michael Kimmelman, the paper pointed out that initially the reaction to the case was that “the arrest painted the usual picture of moralistic America versus libertarian France.”
Libertarian France?
What Kimmelman obviously meant was “libertine” France. The dictionary defines “libertine” as “one who acts without moral restraint, a dissolute person,” which is the notion that Kimmelman was obviously attempting to convey in contradistinguishing the initial reactions to the case in the United States and France.
Like so many other people who have an inadequate understanding of libertarianism, Kimmelman thinks that libertarianism is a synonym for libertinism.
The reason for this common misunderstanding lies with the core principle of libertarianism — that people should be free to do whatever they want in life but only on one condition — that their conduct is peaceful and not fraudulent.
That is, as long as a person doesn’t murder, rape, steal, burglarize, defraud, or initiate other forms of violence against another person or his property, libertarians hold that he should be free to engage in any activity without risk of being punished for it by the state.
Thus, libertarians oppose laws that punish people for purely voluntary and consensual acts. And libertarians support the punishment of people who violate the rights of others through violent or fraudulent acts.
But an important point arises here, one that is often lost on people: Simply because libertarians do not wish to criminalize a peaceful act doesn’t mean that they support the commission of the act. They simply believe that people shouldn’t be punished by the state for making what some people consider is the wrong choice.
To paraphrase Voltaire, libertarians might disagree with the peaceful choices you make in life, but we will defend your right to make them.
A good example is drug laws, which libertarians have long opposed. Libertarians believe that people should be free to ingest any substance they want, no matter how harmful or risky. That includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Ritalin, Prozac, or anything else.
That’s not to say, however, that libertarianism advocates the use of any of these substances. It’s simply to say that libertarianism stands for the proposition that people should be free to make that choice for themselves, without being punished for it by the state.
The problem, however, is that some people jump to the conclusion that since libertarians call for the legalization of such things as drugs, pornography, prostitution, adultery, covetousness, gambling, and other peaceful acts that many people disapprove of, that must mean that libertarians support engaging in such acts, leading them to conclude that libertarians are libertines.
No doubt that that’s how Michael Kimmelman arrived at his belief that libertarianism is synonymous with libertinism.
What’s really disappointing, however, is that Kimmelman would mix up the two words in the context of the Polanski case because libertarians have long held that one of the few legitimate functions of the state is to punish people who commit acts of violence against others, including rape, one of the crimes with which Polanski was charged.
Despite the recent surge of interest in libertarianism, Kimmelman’s misuse of the term, along with the fact that his editors at the New York Times failed to catch the error, shows that we libertarians still have our work cut out for us in the educational arena.