Not All Libertarians are the Same

Don't Be Fooled: Just Like Every Other Political Party, Not All Libertarians are the Same... 

A recent op-ed titled “Don’t be Fooled: Why Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Stay Clear of Gary Johnson,” written by a blogger named Ronald W. Dixon, raised some interesting questions and charges about libertarian ideology. While some of his commentary is not too far off base, some of his assertions were a massive broad brush of all Libertarians.

It isn’t surprising to observe a collectivist mentality in such things because the political opponents of Libertarians need a quick and tidy way of discouraging people from considering other political organizations. The Green Party wants to make their way and it’s understandable that activists in their camp would attempt to warn off their own from Libertarians. Let’s deal with some obvious things.

First, in any political party, many views exist on issues within the party. I have views as a consequentialist libertarian that differ from a deontological libertarian. BlueDog Democrats have different views from progressives and socialists in the DNC. Economic conservatives in the Republican Party have different views from social conservatives in the GOP. So let’s get real on trying to paying any one party as having some monolithic view. Yes there are majority views and those parties take hits for those positions.  So let me attempt to address his commentary with my own Libertarian views.

Dixon wrote: “If we boil down the libertarian ideology to its fundamentals, they essentially believe that we should have as minimal government as possible.” True. And with good reason. Government isn’t free and for every single government employee employed, we should all insist that the marginal benefit of the government not be exceeded by the marginal cost. (That’s economics.)

Dixon continued: “Government protections of civil rights? Zip.” Hold up. I support government regulation that would prohibit vile racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc., being used to do real tangible harm to the liberty of those oppressed by such views. People can think whatever they want but I’m unwilling to agree that bigots should be allowed to use collective bigotry to oppress people arbitrarily. I’m very concerned about the liberty of oppressed people. And while I also agree that markets can often be used to deal with such bigotry, it sometimes fails to do so. Muslims have been refused service at gun stores. Gays have been denied services from bakers. Blacks have been denied services from society at large. I praise Black Lives Matter and participated in the recent march in downtown Oklahoma City.

I hope someday, the market can adequately address these things. But as long as denying oppressed minorities services continues to be a successful business model, government must play a role to stop it. Sure, you will find some Libertarians who think they need to defend the rights of the bigot, but that’s not the entire party.

Dixon states: “Government regulations of large, unsustainable financial institutions that have already reeked havoc on our economy? Nope.” Let’s be clear. The financial system in the USA is the most heavily regulated industry in the world. The premise of those who advocate for more regulation is that regulators are competent. The sub-prime financial crisis is evidence that they sometimes aren’t competent. And while sometimes there are market failures, this is a clear example of a government failure. Many times the answer isn’t more regulation because government cannot manage the very regulation they are charged to audit. So yes, I’m against failed regulatory regimes. Everyone should be in opposition that does more harm than good.

Dixon states: “Government policies that preserve the environment and protect our natural resources? Zilch.” Not true. Private property rights are important and should not be trampled by others. We have courts to address these things. The last time I checked, courts are publicly funded entities. Most Libertarians support courts for that very reason. And I personally support basic regulations to protect the many from the few who would pollute our drinking water, air, etc.

But again, government abuses people in going too far in environment rules. Case in point, Florida seafood importer Abner "Abbie" Schoenwetter was prosecuted under the Lacey Act because he allegedly violated the wildlife laws of Honduras. Of course he had no idea about the laws of Honduras because he’s an American citizen. In his case it didn’t matter any way because even a former attorney general of Honduras came to his aid and testified that the US prosecutors had deemed valid laws that were not. Despite his testimony, Schoenwetter spent years in a US federal prison for violating the wildlife laws of Honduras. Is that the regulation we want? I think not.

Dixon states: “According to libertarians, government has no place in protecting victims of wrongful employment termination.” Again, no. Contracts are a central concept of employment and no person should be terminated for cause because of some act of bigotry. That’s why unions are in existence. Unions are a response to the problems encountered by the condition of monopsony. Unions are a private market response to monopsony power and deserve to be used for such defense of bad employers. Also, the markets do have the ability to defend those harmed by wrongful termination.

Dixon states: “Oftentimes, libertarians conveniently leave out their position that social issues should be left to the states.” True. Some Libertarians make broad states’ rights arguments. But the entire states’ rights argument is cast in a constitutional framework, not a libertarian one. For example, I used to believe that states’ rights would be helpful in securing liberty. And to some extent it does. In states that have a classically liberal view of the 2nd Amendment, people get expansive gun rights and that’s good. But in places like Oklahoma, these same states’ rights ideals passed laws to deny religious freedom to Muslims who wanted to write civil contracts in the same manner as Jews, Catholics, and Protestant faiths. So states’ rights should only be defended in my view when they actually expand liberty for everyone. Not supported blindly, getting some kind of constitutional exception for doing wrong to oppressed people.

Dixon criticizes Johnson in his states’ rights critique by saying that, while Johnson was concerned about racial profiling of immigrants in Arizona, he supported their right to strengthen their immigration laws. But let’s get one thing straight, Johnson has the best, most open view of immigration of any presidential candidate in the 2016 race. It’s a bit disingenuous to make such critique giving that fact.

Dixon criticizes Johnson on his abortion views about abortion. Yet Johnson has openly stated his support for a woman’s right to choose abortion. States prosecute murder under state law, not federal law. And the vast majority of criminal charges are filed under state laws, not federal laws in states. Dixon seems to believe that every single decision must be made by the federal government which is a perversion of our republic.

The fact that Colorado, Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC legalized cannabis was a result of states’ rights and I’m thankful for that. I support that. I think every single person who advocates for cannabis legalization should agree with it. But using Dixon’s argument, that’s not acceptable. Again, states’ rights should be supported when liberty is expanded. Opposed when they attempt to shrink liberty.

Dixon defends every single federal agency as if the Ten Commandments had them etched into stone. Federal agencies are a creation of the government and can absolutely be abolished. TSA should be abolished. DHS should be abolished. Department of Energy should be abolished. Many others too. There is bureaucratic bloat in the federal government and any reasonable person should acknowledge it.

Dixon’s true objective is to secure the Sanders vote for Jill Stein. That’s his right, but before you take on face value the assertions of his screed against Libertarians, please take a closer look for yourself. Go to ISideWith and see who you line up with best. Maybe it is Jill Stein.

Another tool you might consider is the website PoliticalCompass.org. My score is in the picture above.