One of the pivotal catalysts in the Mass Exodus of right-leaning Libertarians from the Libertarian Party was the shift towards egalitarianism. Left-libertarians have continually pushed the LP and the greater movement as a whole towards their utopian goal of egalitarianism. They have gone to great lengths to push the misconception that libertarianism requires an egalitarian mindset. We are told that, as libertarians, we ought to defend diversity in all its forms. To do otherwise is “intolerant,” and therefore “hateful,” and “statist.”

Egalitarian and relativistic sentiments find steady support among ever new generations of adolescents.

~Hans-Hermann Hoppe

That is utter bullshit. Not only is this fallacy simply not required by the libertarian thesis (that individuals should not breach the property rights of others), but it is also a surefire way to guarantee that conservatives never adopt the libertarian view at all. When it appears that libertarians demand cultural liberalism and social progressivism in public policy, it is profoundly off-putting to many Christians and other cultural traditionalists. Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe and the many other great minds who have shaped Libertarianism did so with the intent that Christians and traditionalists can and should be libertarians, but if the message itself is antithetical to their values, then they will never give Libertarianism a second thought.

First of all, tolerance does not presume agreement or approval. On the contrary, it presupposes disagreement. To be tolerant is to refrain from using force (so to speak) to prevent someone from engaging in a lifestyle or activity with which we personally disagree. We are tolerant when, even if we vehemently express our disapproval against an activity, we refrain from physically interfering with said activity. Tolerance is not present in a situation of agreement and approval, for there is nothing to tolerate if you agree with what is being done. That’s the definition of tolerance. Simple stuff, right?

Libertarianism, in its simplest form, is about property rights. The proper nature of rights in libertarian theory are negative, not positive.  A negative right means that an individual’s right is a “restriction” on the actions of another against the individual. That is, the individual has a right to be free of another man’s physical interference. Example: an individual has a right to not be stolen from, murdered or forced to listen to Nickelback. 

Discrimination isn’t contrary to libertarianism, it is a fundamental necessity. Let’s take employment for example. Every employee hired for a job opening is a discrimination against all those applicants that didn’t make the cut. True, they weren’t discriminated against based on gender, race, etc., however, they were discriminated against based on their intellect, their education, their skills, their attire, their haircut and their personality (Because who wants to work with an asshole?) But let’s be painfully honest here. People miss out on being hired for jobs all the time based on their political views and a plethora of other factors, simply because, well, the employer doesn’t like them. And that’s ok. 

In a truly libertarian social order, where property rights allow the individual to discriminate based on whatever bias he adopts, libertarians should have no problem in letting business owners make decisions about their employees and customers. A black business owner sympathetic to the Black Panthers can legally refuse to service a white man if he so desires, just as a white business owner whose hobbies include wearing a white hood can refuse service to a black man. And a Church can refuse to marry a homosexual if their convictions lead them to such a decision. To claim otherwise is frankly unLibertarian. And statist. 


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here