Is There a 'Wrong' Way to Defend Liberty?

Obviously, the Liberty Movement is made up of all types of ideologies, all unified in opposition to paternalistic government and many unified in their ultimate end goal: libertarians, Austrian economists, Objectivists, capitalists, minarchists, paleoconservatives, classical liberals, and even some breeds of anarchists are part of this liberty-based coalition.

On their own, statists have been generally ineffective in implementing their policies throughout history. Any progress that statists do make, however, is often the result of error on the part of their opponents - of supporters of liberty offering up inadequate defenses for their position, thus allowing the statists to gain more ground than they would otherwise have.

So with that in mind, it is important for us to wonder: is there a wrong way to defend liberty?

For your consideration, I offer this essay on Milton Friedman - no doubt a lover of liberty himself but, possibly, a prime example of what an inadequate defense of liberty looks like:

On the one hand, I regard the basic human value that underlies my own beliefs as tolerance based on humility. I have no right to coerce someone else because I cannot be sure that I am right and he is wrong. On the other hand, some of our heros…people who have, in fact, done the most to promote libertarian ideas, who have been enormously influential, have been highly intolerant as human beings and have justified their views, with which I largely agree, in ways that I regard as promoting intolerance.

A Childlike View of Libertarianism

Check out this article from Guy Stagg in The Telegraph.

Libertarianism is an immature and incoherent philosophy. First, it is an intellectual non-starter: even founder Robert Nozick changed his mind about the perverse form of liberty which it fostered. Second, you have to be very naive to think that letting everyone take heroin and own shotguns would really make them more free. Third, the idea that deregulation would solve all our problems is, given the current economic crisis, frankly a joke.

So let's leave libertarianism to the middle-aged druggies trying to justify their habit, and the unruly children looking for an excuse to rebel. That's where it belongs. After all, there's nothing more petulant than ranting about the evils of council tax and the glories of Isaiah Berlin.

First off, Robert Nozick was a libertarian to the end, as he verified to Julian Sanchez in an interview shortly before his death.

But more importantly, I wonder if Stagg has ever heard of the strawman fallacy? Defining libertarianism as a philosophy where everybody takes heroin and owns shotguns is ignoring the fact that everyone may not want to take heroin or own shotguns. Furthermore, I have never heard a libertarian, when asked how to fix "all our problems," simply answer deregulation.

Stagg wants you to believe libertarianism is a childlike philosophy that ignores a complex world. In contrast, libertarianism is a unique ideology insofar that it acknowledges just how complex the world is! I am tempted to go on a rant about F.A. Hayek and the fatal conceit, but I have a better idea. Stagg should grow up and visit the newly-created libertarianism.org to learn what the philosophy is all about.

The Victory Lap

Is it moral to use government funds?

The other day in my political research class the proffesor went on another rant about how much he despises libertarians and the right.  After a little back and forth about libertarinism in general he made the the following statement:

If libertarians really believed in their ideas, why would you attend this school?  Why would you accept Social Security or go to a public high school.  If you are true to your words you should not utilize any government service what so ever.

My reply to him was: "So what am I supposed to do about the roads?"

This later got me to think about the morality of accepting government funds.  I went to a public high school, drive on government roads all the time, pay taxes, and I attend a public college.  I have obviously used, and have benefitted from government funds.  For being so anti-state, I sure do use it a lot. 

This has always made me feel ucomfortable but I accepted it because school, and roads are for the most part monopolized  by the state.  However, I asked myself if I were out of school working full time and had a family that needed my income, would I take unemployment benefits if I were to lose my job all the sudden?  Would I apply for food stamps?

After some thinking I decided that I would take both, just as Rothbard and Walter Block have decided.