“Libertarianism is about accepting people. Anyone can be a libertarian. Are you homophobic? That’s okay, as long as you adhere to the Constitution. Do you secretly hate black people? No one minds, as long as you don’t act on your racism and join the KKK. The beauty of libertarianism is that no one can decide exactly what a libertarian is and therefore you can be a libertarian even if you’re a xenophobic, woman-hating, Nazi sociopath as long as you don’t impose your beliefs on others.”
I posted this on my Facebook page as a tongue-in-cheek commentary over the recent debates over who should be considered a libertarian and why. I naturally thought my facetious statements would be taken as such but was surprised to see people agreeing with them.
Can a Nazi be a libertarian? Hypothetically, I suppose, just as the Westboro Baptist Church is technically Christian despite the fact that their intolerance of various groups disregards the basic tenets of their faith.
I’m all for accepting left and right libertarians. I accept that there is no “Ten Commandments” of liberty and that there will always be disagreements over what makes a person a libertarian. I have long believed that there should be no such thing as a libertarian litmus test but, at the same time, I hate to see libertarianism becoming the garbage dump of political thought. While there are many types of libertarians, we need to be careful about just how inclusive we are.
Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a religion. As libertarians, we should respect people but are not obligated to accept them as comrades. As a movement, we are allowed to be selective. We should be selective. Tolerating the intolerant only serves to corrupt libertarianism. I have no desire to be associated with people who claim to believe in freedom but also believe that certain races are inferior. There is a difference between tolerating an individual’s beliefs and accepting them.
So where do we draw the line? What separates a libertarian (an admittedly broad term encompassing many kinds of libertarians) from a non-libertarian? For me, the line is drawn when people outwardly express intolerance for a non-threatening behavior or group of people or otherwise act in a way that violates the principles of liberty.
Why can’t a Nazi be a true libertarian? Because the core beliefs of Nazism go against the core beliefs of libertarianism. A belief system that preaches intolerance for a group of people goes against the basic principles of libertarianism. Respect for the rights of the individual is the unifying theme of all types of libertarianism.
As a libertarian, I can respect the right of a Nazi to possess his beliefs despite the fact that they go against my own. I can tolerate a person whose behavior I find immoral provided they are not infringing upon another person’s freedom. As a libertarian, I believe that people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs and my approval of their behavior is inconsequential. My tolerance does not automatically make such people libertarians, however.
An inclusive, accepting liberty movement may gain more followers but that doesn’t necessarily make it stronger. The criteria to be a libertarian is broad and ambiguous enough; let’s not lose sight of common sense in the name of expansion.
Reblogged this on christinemariedixon.
“My tolerance does not automatically make [Nazis] libertarians”
This is an excellent point. I agree totally that what makes any hateful bigot a libertarian is not OUR tolerance of them. What makes them libertarian is THEIR tolerance of us (i.e not aggresssing against us).
I think we all are uncomfortable finding ourselves in common cause with people whose opinions are abhorent. For myself, I will limit my contact with such people, but theoretically, they may be perfectly libertarian. We can exclude them from OUR lives, but they CANNOT be defined out of the movement if they follow the non-aggression principle.
The beauty of libertarianism is that it is the biggest tent on earth. Libertarianism is based on the fact that conflicting moral values can peacefully co-exist if each person is willing to leave other people alone as long as they leave us alone. We talking about a lowest common-denominator political philosophy.
Libertarian tolerance means we do not initiate force against those we disagree with. [It also means not initiating violence against people we DO AGREE with; but honestly, even jack-booted statists leave people alone who agree with them. That does not make them libertarian!]
Libertarianism does not–not for a moment–mean validating or accepting other people’s opinions or actions. Such tolerance may be virtuous; it may be idiotic, but it is not libertarian.
I may be a total bigot: a sexist, homophobe, racist, anti-semite jerk, but if I do not aggress against others, then that makes me the real libertarian in a room full of “enlightened” people who are willing to apply some tolerance-based litmus test before admitting my right to be left alone. It’s the NAP. Rinse, Repeat. It’s the NAP.
In addition to what the last commenter posted, the reason Nazis cannot be libertarian is not because of their personal intolerance, but because they repeatedly violated the NAP. It’s a totalitarian ideology. It’s short for National Socialism. The Nazi Party, while in power in Germany, controlled wages and salaries, outlawed worker strikes, and on top of all of that committed a Holocaust. THAT’S what makes them unlibertarian, but that Jews got their pannies in a bunch. This is a terrible blog post.
*not* that Jews got their pannies in a bunch. It was what came after that made them unlibertarian.