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.
This article was originally published in the February 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.
