Is libertarianism an “immoral” philosophy?

I ran across a screenshot of a tweet the other day.

For those not familiar, the tweet refers to Libertarian Pary presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen.  But I don’t want to focus on Jorgensen’s candidacy, or the LP, or even merits of supporting any presidential candidate. Instead, I’d like to consider the idea that “libertarianism is an immoral philosophy.”

I hear this assertion frequently, but I suspect most people leveling the charge don’t know anything about the philosophical basis of libertarianism. If they did, they would have a difficult time calling it immoral.

Libertarian thought rests on the idea of self-ownership. If you own something, you possess it and have the exclusive right to use it as you see fit. You exercise exclusive control over your property. Based on that definition, every person owns her or himself.

Of course, we couldn’t live together in society if everybody exercised their right of self-ownership to its fullest extent. The world would descend into chaos if everybody did whatever they pleased with no regard for other people. If you could take any action you deemed in your best interest, for your well-being, or for your own satisfaction, you could easily cause great harm to others. For instance, it might serve my interest to take your food. It might benefit me to enslave you. If you make me extremely angry, killing you might bring me some satisfaction.

A moral system that places no restraint on the actions I can take fails to solve a fundamental ethical problem. It doesn’t minimize conflict. That’s why libertarian thought doesn’t stop with the right to put your body to the uses you think best. It includes an important stipulation — you can’t ethically do things that interfere with another person’s right to control her or his body. When you interfere with another person’s control over the use of her body, you commit an act of aggression. Libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe defines aggression as:

“An action that is performed uninvitedly that invades or changes the physical integrity of another person’s body and puts this body to a use that is not to this very person’s own liking.”

Putting this idea into more practical terms, aggression is “the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.”

Libertarian thought rejects aggression.

Practically speaking, the foundation of the libertarian political philosophy boils down to “don’t hit people and don’t take their stuff.” It rejects aggressive violence, force and coercion as an ethical way to order society. It allows people the freedom to go about their own lives as they please as long as they don’t aggress against other people. This fits neatly to the Second Great Commandment in Christianity, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Contrast that with the dominant political philosophy in the world today — statism.

Statism, whether run from the political left or the right,  roots itself in violence, force and coercion. The state enforces every law, every regulation, and every mandate with the threat of violence. And governments collect every penny of their revenue at gunpoint. Doubt this? Resist and see what happens. As theologian William Stringfellow put it, “the moral authority of the state is death.”

Statists such as Taylor imagine their political philosophy to “moral” because they seek noble ends. They want to feed the poor, save the planet, and educate children. They want to further the “general welfare” and make the world a better place.

That’s nice.

But their means are anything but moral. Pointing a gun at somebody and threatening in order to bend them to your will doesn’t fit into any moral/ethical framework a sane person would embrace.

The fact that statists think people should behave in a certain way for their own well-being, that they shouldn’t do certain things because they are detrimental to society, or that they should fund certain things for some greater good doesn’t change the moral calculus. Statists may have the noblest of intentions. They may fancy their causes righteous and just. They may wrap themselves in a cocoon of moral superiority. But never forget they’re still cracking skulls to mold the world into their image.

Libertarianism doesn’t do that.

If any political philosophy should be subject to a moral trial, it’s statism.