Introduction to Libertarianism

An Introduction to the Libertarian Political Philosophy

compiled by Kelly Russell Simpson

The following basic principle is an approximate summary of the libertarian political philosophy:

People have the right to control their own lives and property as long as they

don’t forcibly interfere with the equal right of other people.

It’s justifiable to use force to stop behavior that involves initiated force, such as murder, enslavement, assault, and theft. But any behavior that does not involve initiated force should be legal, even when most people disapprove of it. Saying that something should be legal does not necessarily mean approving of it. It’s just saying that people should not use force to try to stop it. Trying to force people to help themselves or others leads to more problems than we started with. Instead of threatening peaceful, honest people with the guns of government, we should support associations, businesses, and charities that persuade people to support them by providing valuable services.

Freedom should be defended by free people.

A military or police organization that forces people to support it (with service or taxes) makes the world less safe and less free. Only voluntarily supported organizations are needed for defense. And professional security personnel can be assisted by civilians who have been trained in responsible ownership and use of weapons.

With the millions of guns already in this country, our thousands of miles of unguardable borders, and our countless tools and materials, criminals will always be able to buy, make, or steal guns and ammunition, and they are more likely to commit crimes in areas where it’s illegal to own a gun. The police cannot be everyone’s personal bodyguards. Laws against owning guns disarm the people who obey the laws, leaving them more vulnerable to criminals, invaders, and tyrants. And they make peaceful people decide between obeying the law and protecting themselves.

You own yourself.

People have a right to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to expose themselves to. For example, many people decide that the pleasure or health benefits that they expect to receive from taking certain drugs are greater than the risks to their health from the drugs. Although it’s justifiable to forcibly prevent children from taking risks that they cannot understand (in the same way that it’s justifiable to forcibly prevent an adult from stepping in front of an oncoming car when there is not time for him to understand a warning before he takes the step), it’s not justifiable to forcibly prevent people from taking risks when they can understand warnings about the risks before taking them.

The harm that drug abusers can do to themselves is very sad, but they are not helped by being hunted and locked in cages. There will be drug use as long as there is demand for drugs. Trying to achieve the impossible goal of stopping the supply only brings us more problems, as it did when alcohol was illegal. If the drugs that are illegal now were relegalized like alcohol, addicts could get more help; the drugs would be safer; criminal organizations would be weakened; violent crime would be reduced; we would all be safer from arbitrary searches and seizures of property; courts and prisons would be less crowded; and the police could concentrate on catching people who initiate force.

People have a right to move freely from one place to another and to freely trade their property and labor.

Governments in the United States and other countries have enacted immigration restrictions, import quotas and tariffs, occupational and business licensing laws, minimum-wage laws, and other laws that forcibly restrict voluntary trading. As a result of this, many countries are still poor and America has become less and less a land of opportunity.

Immigrants are great additions to communities. It takes very brave, industrious people to leave family, friends, and home and move to a place where the people speak a strange language, have strange customs, and often are not friendly. Immigrants add cultural and material wealth to their new communities.

A country that removes restrictions and taxes on imported goods is better off even if other countries don’t do the same. Increasing the number of producers in a market increases variety and quality and reduces costs. Some people might need to change jobs, but free trade leads to an overall increase in wealth. And it makes peace more likely.

Laws against fraud (which is a form of theft) can be beneficial, but occupational and business licensing laws needlessly restrict our choices as producers and consumers. Voluntary certification by respected associations can provide information about safety and ability while keeping the benefits of competition.

People who make low wages can be helped with gifts and loans, but minimum-wage laws reduce their opportunities to help themselves, because these laws reduce employment opportunities for people with little training or experience. A person who would take an hour to produce something that sells for $3, for example, is not likely to be hired if the employer would have to pay that person $5 per hour.

When employers have to pay a higher beginning wage, they usually hire fewer workers or raise their prices. Many would lose money or even go out of business if they raised their prices, because many of their customers are not able or willing to pay higher prices. And if they hired workers at the higher wage without raising their prices, they would lose their training investments if the workers quit too soon.

If workers could accept jobs with low beginning wages, they would have a much greater variety of jobs to choose from, because employers in more professions could afford to take the risk of training inexperienced workers. Instead of starting at the minimum wage selling hamburgers, for example, many people might prefer to start at lower wages in jobs that are more interesting and will lead to higher wages. They would need some support for a while, but that support could be given to them directly, without taking opportunities away from them. And because fewer people would be competing for the less-desirable jobs, the wages for those jobs would increase.

It’s very sad when competition causes people to have to change jobs or accept less money to stay in jobs they want to keep. But it’s even sadder when people’s opportunities to make a living are forcibly limited. If there were free trade within and between countries, most of the adults in the world would be able to provide necessities and, increasingly, luxuries for themselves and their children. And the orphans and adults who couldn’t support themselves could be helped much better than they are helped now.

Replace taxes with charity and user fees.

If most people are selfish, it’s a very bad idea to put a bunch of everyone’s money in a pot where the people with the most political influence can get it. And if most people are generous, it’s still a bad idea, because people have different priorities and different ideas about how to achieve goals. For example, some people think finding a cure for cancer should have high priority, while others think it’s more important to support preventive health care.

Tax credits could be used to transition to voluntary support. For example, a taxpayer who donated $1,000 to approved charities or government agencies could subtract $1,000 from his taxes, and the amount that the legislature could spend would be decreased by $1,000. Government agencies that only a few people wanted to support would be phased out, because the legislature would not be able to support them. The legislators would find it harder to spend money on things like corporate subsidies, especially if we also limited their ability to borrow or print money. (When a government prints money and spends it, it is actually imposing a hidden tax. The government uses the new money to buy goods and services at current prices, and as the new money spreads through the economy, prices increase, so the people who pay the higher prices are actually paying a tax, an inflation tax.)

Americans already give billions of dollars each year to charities, even while about half of our income is taken by the various taxes. During the transition from taxation to voluntary support, more people will get into the habit of comparing charities and donating regularly to charities that they think do good work. They will also get into the habit of taking responsibility for themselves by saving and buying insurance instead of depending on government programs that give money to one group of people by taxing another group. The transition could last for years or decades, and the amount that people would be required to give could be reduced gradually until all giving is voluntary.

Many of the services that are paid for with taxes, such as education, could be paid for with user fees, and the people who couldn’t afford the fees could be given money to buy the services they prefer. (Gasoline taxes would be basically user fees if they were used only to pay for roads in the areas where they were collected, but roads could also be paid for with other user fees, such as electronic tolls.) Providing “free” services with taxes means that people who don’t use the services, including lower-income people, have to pay for them anyway. And often the people who use them would prefer different services but can’t afford them because they have to pay taxes. The poor and the middle classes, as well as the rich, should be more able to choose the services they prefer.

If the services were provided by fee-supported nonprofit or profit-seeking organizations, we would have a great variety to choose from. When property rights are secure and we are free to choose among offers of trade, selfishness is harnessed to produce wealth for each other. And wealth is not just material things. Only you can decide what is valuable to you. And the more choices you have, the more likely you will be to find what you value.