Libertarians Rising

Michael Kinsley has an interesting, if somewhat misinformed, essay in Time Magazine about the growth of the libertarian movement.

After describing libertarianism as he sees it, Kinsley asks

And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.

I guess "communitarianism" is the new socialism? He goes on to say, in what I'd call the money quote:

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country.

All well and good. Toward the end however he starts to stumble:

People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul--one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby--raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society--nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics.

Where Kinsley goes wrong is in characterizing libertarians as "loners", people "convinced that they don’t need society", etc. That’s an old socialist strawman. I’ve never heard another libertarian assert that individuals are isolated, perfectly autonomous and self-sufficient. On the contrary, most want to be free to engage the rest of society in all peaceful ways possible. They simply wish to retain the right to choose for themselves which of those ways is best in any given circumstance, not have that decision made for them by someone else, be it a next-door neighbor or some central authority.

As Albert Jay Nock observed, the enlargement of state power always comes at the expense of social power.

A commentator at The Liberty Papers blog sent the following letter to Time in response to Kinsley's essay:

It’s not accurate to say, “Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations.” They are decidedly opposed to infringement on the health, property, commerce and expression of others, and recognize that a well-defined judicial authority is the best way to handle disputes; it’s not a philosophy of anarchy by any means. Generally, they are also comfortable with community organization, and local representative governments. Libertarians are not against charity or community action, and in fact are often very active in such fields. Where they firmly draw the line is on making such things mandatory (by tax-funded welfare, or by literal mandate).

Consider the tenet that no contract may be entered without express consent of both parties, and then think of taxation and what the money’s spent on as a contract between the government and the citizens. Beyond this plain ethical objection to prescriptive government, libertarians generally believe that a central authority is always less efficient, less flexible, and ultimately does less good (and/or more harm) than individual, voluntary actions. Note that “forming a commune” falls in the latter column from the libertarian perspective! You mentioned Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, and I’ll cite him as a prime example: in his private medical practice he refuses to accept Medicare payments — not by turning away patients, but by providing his services free of charge.