Libertarianism is a consistent and principled philosophy that is absolute in scope and universal in application.
We can begin with this classic description of libertarianism by libertarianism’s greatest theorist, Murray Rothbard (1926–1995):
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.
Libertarianism is therefore not about one’s lifestyle, tastes, sexual proclivities, religion (or lack of religion), school of aesthetics, cultural norms, tolerances, morals, vices, or personal preferences. And it certainly cannot be reduced to the simplistic “economically conservative and socially liberal.”
The nonaggression principle
The guiding principle undergirding the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the nonaggression principle. As explained by Rothbard:
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 one man from infringing upon the liberty of another. 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 must be proportional, and is neither essential nor required.
Most Americans would no doubt subscribe to the nonaggression principle on a personal and individual level. Homeowners should be allowed to forcibly repel burglars and trespassers. Store owners should be permitted to stop armed robbers with deadly force. Assault and battery should be resisted by whatever reasonable means necessary. Convicted murderers, kidnappers, and rapists should forfeit their liberty and be locked up. Shoplifting, arson, mugging, burglary, theft, and writing bad checks are crimes against property, but are crimes nevertheless. But on the other hand, violence committed by one individual against another in a wrestling, boxing, or MMA event, or during voluntary sex acts containing bondage, sadism, or masochism, because the violence is consensual, does not violate the nonaggression principle.
The problem is when the nonaggression principle is applied to the state. Many Americans who hold to the nonaggression principle on a personal and individual level have no problem supporting government aggression against those who are not aggressing against the person or property of others, or are engaging in certain peaceful activities, in order to effect changes in behavior, compel virtue, or achieve some desired end. But as Rothbard explains: “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. In particular, as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government.”
Libertarians “make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government.” For as former Foundation for Economic Education president Richard Ebeling has noted, “There has been no greater threat to life, liberty, and property throughout the ages than government. Even the most violent and brutal private individuals have been able to inflict only a mere fraction of the harm and destruction that have been caused by the use of power by political authorities.” The nonconsensual initiation of aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, even when done by government.
Libertarianism
Because of the nature of government, libertarians believe that the actions of government should be strictly limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. As libertarian theorist Doug Casey elaborates, “Since government is institutionalized coercion — a very dangerous thing — it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion. What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.” This means that all government actions — at any level of government — beyond reasonable defense, judicial, and policing activities are illegitimate. The “sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
All of this means that the government should not monitor our activities, transfer our wealth, force us to be charitable, or punish us for doing things that are not aggression, force, coercion, threat, or violence. Virtuous action should never be compelled; it should be left up to the free choice of the individual. Charity, relief, and philanthropy should be entirely voluntary activities. Markets should be completely free of government regulation, licensing, restriction, and interference. Libertarians believe that individual consumers, consumer protection groups, and the free market can regulate business better than government agencies and bureaucrats. All services can and should be provided by competing firms on the free market. Laissez faire should be the rule and not the exception. The government should not interfere with exchanges between willing buyers and willing sellers. No industry or sector of the economy — or individual business — should ever receive government subsidies, loans, or bailouts. Property rights are supreme: He who owns the property or the business makes the rules for entry, commerce, interaction, tenancy, duration, or tenure.
Microlibertarianism
The term microlibertarianism was recently coined by Ryan McMaken, executive editor at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, to describe “libertarians who will act on principle on the small, easy topics, but will then abandon all principle on the big stuff.” Microlibertarians believe that “limits on state power work for the small stuff, but not for the big stuff.” Consequently, “the powers and prerogatives most central to state power — and which offer the greatest threats to the lives and freedoms of ordinary people — get a free pass.”
Microlibertarians rightly point out the evils of marijuana prohibition, how rent control leads to shortages in housing, how minimum-wage laws increase unemployment, the advantages of price gouging during a national disaster, the absurdity of laws against prostitution and other victimless crimes, the heroism of ticket scalpers, how occupational licensing reduces the supply of labor and increases its cost, and the benefits of privatizing government services like garbage collection. Although these issues are not unimportant, they “are generally rather peripheral to state power,” says McMaken. “To remove state action from these areas does little to endanger the state or its core powers.”
Microlibertarians defer to the government when it comes to “national emergencies” or “the national interest” or to “existential threats” to “national security” or “public health.” Thus, after 9/11, there could be found libertarians who vociferously defended individual liberty, small government, and the free market while they just as enthusiastically embraced war, militarism, and the surveillance state. McMaken reminds us of the common refrain heard during Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012: “I agree with Ron Paul except on foreign policy,” which in reality meant: “I think the state is bad on some things, but I’m not really interested in confronting the major issues at the core of state power.”
Microlibertarians have showed their true colors again since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, with some of them supporting U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine. During the COVID-19 “pandemic,” some libertarians supported lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, and other draconian government responses in the name of “public health” even though the result should have been a foregone conclusion: The permanent increase and expansion of government power and interventions into the economy and society.
The issues
It is not just on national security and public-health issues where microlibertarians go astray. What follows are some other big issues where microlibertarianism is at odds with libertarianism.
Education. The libertarian asserts that education should be completely separated from the state in the same manner in which religion should be completely separated from the state. Just as there should be no government churches, there should be no government schools — elementary, secondary, trade, college, or university — or funding of schools or students. There is nothing special about providing educational services that necessitates that the government be involved in it.
The microlibertarian is adamant that religion should be separated from the state but maintains that government funding of education via vouchers is legitimate because it gives parents “school choice.” But giving one group of Americans the choice of where to spend other Americans’ money to educate their children is immoral and unjust. Libertarian voucher proponents long ago quit saying that educational vouchers were an intermediate step toward a free market in education. Microlibertarians believe that some Americans should pay for the education of other Americans and their children, even though if government vouchers were issued for things besides education, microlibertarians would rightly denounce them as an income-transfer program.
Social Security. The libertarian asserts that the Social Security program is maintained by government coercion via funding by a 12.4 percent payroll tax (split evenly between employers and employees) on the first $168,600 of one’s income. “Contributions” to Social Security are anything but voluntary, and businesses that fail to withhold payroll taxes are subject to prosecution and heavy penalties. Social Security takes money from the young and transfers it to the old. Libertarians view it as immoral for the government to force people to have a retirement plan, force people to have a disability plan, or force people to have a safety net. They also believe that care and compassion of the elderly, widows, orphans, and the disabled comes from the willing hearts of individuals rather than from government coercion. In short, Social Security is an intergenerational income-transfer scheme and wealth-redistribution program that should be abolished.
The microlibertarian maintains that Social Security can and should be reformed by updating the eligibility age, gradually raising the retirement age, reducing annual cost-of-living increases, means-testing of benefits, raising the wage base, shifting to a flat benefit, allowing Americans to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, and/or privatizing the program. (It should be pointed out that Social Security privatization plans merely privatize coercion since the government still forces people to save for retirement.) Microlibertarians believe that Social Security should be fixed and saved for future generations because it is an entrenched federal program that cannot be eliminated.
Tax reform. The libertarian asserts that taxation is theft. The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should be constitutional, fair, uniform, flat, apportioned equally, or even low. And the libertarian view of the tax code is not that it should be short, simple, or efficient. The libertarian view of taxes and the tax code is simply that they should not exist because acquiring someone’s property by force is wrong, whether done by individuals or by governments. All Americans should be entitled to keep the fruits of their labor and spend their money as they see fit. They should be free to accumulate as much wealth as they can as long as they do it peaceably and without committing fraud.
The microlibertarian maintains that the tax code can and should be reformed, that taxes should be made fairer and flatter, and that the tax code should be made shorter and simpler. They are intensely devoted — in the name of efficiency and simplicity — to the elimination of tax deductions, tax credits, and loopholes, that is, things that allow Americans to keep more of their money in their pockets and out of the hands of Uncle Sam. Although microlibertarians may call for lower taxes, they still believe that the government is entitled to a portion of every American’s income.
Entitlement reform. The libertarian asserts that no American is entitled to receive food, money, housing, or medical care from the government or from a private entity that is receiving government funds. The government has no resources of its own. Every dime that the government gives a welfare recipient, it must first take from a taxpayer. It is immoral to take resources from those who work and give it to those who don’t — even if the government does the taking. Libertarians therefore believe that all welfare programs should be abolished — from food stamps to job training to unemployment compensation — not reformed. All charity should be private and voluntary.
The microlibertarian believes that welfare should be reformed to eliminate fraud and make government provision of welfare more efficient. When they do call for the elimination of a welfare program, it is usually because they are advocating federal block grants to the states so that the states can operate the program while the federal government picks up most of the cost. Even worse, in the name of combating “income equality,” some microlibertarians have even called for a universal basic income to be given to all Americans who make under a certain amount, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
The drug war. Even some libertarians are hesitant about the full legalization of drugs that are stronger than marijuana — like heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. The libertarian position on the drug war is straightforward: There should be no laws at any level of government for any reason regarding the buying, selling, growing, processing, transporting, manufacturing, advertising, using, possessing, or “trafficking” of any drug. All drug laws should be repealed, all government agencies devoted to fighting the war on drugs should be abolished, and the war on drugs should be ended completely and immediately. There should be a free market in drugs without any government interference in the form of regulation, oversight, restrictions, taxing, rules, or licensing.
The microlibertarian is certainly in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana on the state level for both medical and recreational use and is in opposition to federal laws that regulate or prohibit marijuana possession or use. However, how many of them would publicly call for the legalization of cocaine, LSD, heroin, crystal meth, and the dreaded fentanyl just like they would argue for the legalization of marijuana? It doesn’t take much courage nowadays to say that marijuana should be legal. Many liberals and some conservatives would even say so.
Conclusion
Pure, unvarnished, plumb-line libertarianism is the antidote to government aggressions against person or property, even when it comes to the “big stuff” of national security, public health, and entrenched federal programs. The libertarian goal is a free society where the nonaggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. The re-form-oriented mindset of micro-libertarians will never get us there.
This article was originally published in the August 2024 issue of Future of Freedom.