It is important for libertarians to consciously and with purpose reject the notion of a ‘libertarian utopia,’ as it detracts from the substantive practicality of the libertarian political philosophy.
I had an extended debate on Facebook recently about open and closed borders (surprise!). But despite the discussion having been particularly about borders, the meme of the apparent ‘utopia’ libertarians believe in, came up. As it often does, it was used in the sense of a hypothetical scenario where a libertarian society (‘utopia’) exists, to guide the conversation about borders. This meme, unfortunately, makes an appearance in far too many discussions.
Libertarianism has never been utopian, although one might be forgiven for thinking that it is after a long discussion with free marketeers about how ‘the market’ will solve society’s problems. Libertarianism, for the most part, is simply a recognition of human nature.
And as far as practicality goes, there is no political philosophy more implementable than libertarianism, as it only requires government to do less – something it is very adept at when the circumstances suit it. Despite our deep disagreements, most libertarians would agree that progress would follow as a direct result of bureaucrats and politicians putting their pens down and going on an extended vacation.
But even where this happens, and a substantial chunk of the ‘political’ problem is removed, there should be no doubt in our minds that ‘libertarian societies’ will be marked by many imperfections. The market will let us down on many occasions. After all, the market does not do what we, the conscious libertarians, always want it to do. The market is a force without a political and ideological worldview. It simply goes where the bulk of people are willing to put their resources. And sometimes people will not consciously want to put their resources in something, which might be to the net detriment of society. But that’s okay.
We are not libertarians because we desire easy living and utopia. We are libertarians because we believe there is an imperative in scaling back – or abolishing – the most manifest instance of institutionalized violence ever known to our species. As I wrote for Students For Liberty in June 2015:
‘The State moving out of the way’ obviously has its own consequences, many of which are unknown, but which we believe in any case will be preferable than having a supermassive institution extorting us on a continual basis in every facet of our existence.
We believe that whatever imperfections or problems a market-driven society will throw at us will be significantly less of a problem than the constant and unending ‘permission’-based existence we currently live, where nothing we do or want to do happens without some or other kind of government involvement. Indeed, if ever something like a ‘microaggression’ existed, it is when we need permission from low-level bureaucrats to do things as basic as cut someone else’s hair or sell liquor at a restaurant.
As libertarians we should avoid legitimizing the ‘libertarian utopia’ myth by acting as if ‘the market’ will ‘solve’ every imaginable problem we face. It simply won’t, and even today, does not do so where it is allowed to. In our debates off and online we should embrace the unpredictability of the market, and admit that even though we think things will generally be great – informed by sound economic principles – we can never say for certain. And if the unfortunate comes to pass, we’ll find a way to deal with it (or we won’t; value is subjective, after all).
Establishing a ‘libertarian society’ will create new problems, but those are problems we are completely willing to face, knowing that they will be dealt with on the basis of voluntary cooperation and tolerance for nonviolent differences. That should be our selling point.
Latest posts by Martin van Staden (see all)
- The Forgotten Jurisprudence of Giovanni Sartori - May 9, 2020
- Being Libertarian Group Welcomes Two New Additions - October 31, 2018
- In Favorem Libertatis: A Libertarian Theory of Statutory Interpretation - October 31, 2018