Is Libertarianism Apathetic? Spoiler Alert: It Isn't

by Porter

A recent tweet from the fairly-popular Catholic Twitter account @paxchristus0  claimed that “Libertarian ideology can be summarized in one word: Apathy.” The tweet goes on to criticize libertarianism as “a position for those who don’t care about the future of their people, the future of their nation, the future of their religion, or really just the future in general.” I have a problem with virtually every word in this tweet (for example: of course libertarians oppose “their nation” when authoritarian-rightists constantly confuse the nation with the State), but for now I will just focus on the primary claim: that libertarianism is apathetic.

Interestingly, the central error in this line of thinking is the exact same as the one that so-called “lolbertarians” or “liberlalas” make about libertarian philosophy, taken in the exact opposite direction. At the heart of their misunderstanding, both authoritarian-rightists and misguided libertarians believe that libertarianism is synonymous with radical individualism. They both think that libertarians believe each person should be able to do whatever he pleases, without limit, as long as he does not violate the property rights of anyone else in doing so, and that any social response or community condemnation is oppressive and anti-libertarian. “Lolbertarians” think this gives them free rein to be self-serving and hedonistic without consequence. Authoritarian-rightists think that libertarianism thus condones selfishness and hedonism. They are both wrong. First, I will address the underlying question of whether libertarianism is individualistic, and then I will answer the more direct question: Is libertarianism apathetic?

Those who claim that libertarianism is individualistic are only half right. Libertarian philosophy is necessarily individualistic only in that it upholds and promotes the twin axioms that all individuals have inherent, unalienable rights, and that only individuals have rights. However, all libertarian philosophy that logically follows from these axioms is necessarily social in nature because it attempts to determine how human beings should interact with each other, and when exactly the use of force is appropriate and when it is illegitimate. Libertarian philosophy answers questions of when property is legitimate, how it can be acquired, on what grounds and with what amount of force it can be defended from aggression, and others that stem from the central axioms described above. These are questions of social interaction, not isolated individual behavior. Therefore, libertarianism cannot be synonymous with radical individualism. Libertarian philosophy and theory would be completely irrelevant to a person living completely alone in the wilderness, never encountering another human being.

With the central mistake refuted, we can now answer the charge that libertarianism is apathetic. Again, it is only half right. Libertarian philosophy is only apathetic in the sense that it is just a set of basic rules for human interaction – a framework for a society that aims to protect individuals from harm provided they don't harm themselves, and thus creates conditions for peace and prosperity. It does not recommend any further moral code, nor does it opine on which types of actions are more desirable or less desirable within the basic rules of interaction. “Lolbertarians” and authoritarian-rightists alike conclude that this means that libertarianism necessarily condones any and all actions that do not violate property rights or individual rights. This is why the authoritarian right hates libertarianism – they have a deep misunderstanding of it that leads them to believe it completely precludes any social or moral belief systems that go beyond determining the legitimacy of force and property. They think libertarianism goes further than it really does. However, the reality that libertarianism does not recommend any more comprehensive moral code should not be construed as apathy, but instead as allowing ample room for debate over what types of actions are more desirable, and for the development of social institutions that promote these actions, within the framework of society that libertarian philosophy sets out. In fact, libertarianism guarantees by far the most peaceful resolution to the unceasing, continual debate over what the people in a society should believe and how they should behave because the foundational principles of libertarianism preclude aggressive violence. The results of that debate are neither “oppressive,” as some misguided libertarians would claim, nor can they be in any way “apathetic.”

Before I close, I will answer the predictable response from the authoritarian right: that there should be no debate, because the moral and social codes of religion and traditionalism should not be questioned, and that allowing a debate is either accepting defeat or implicitly condoning the rejection of these values. The problem here is that the only alternative to allowing debate and ensuring the most peaceful resolution is to instate some kind of artificial hierarchy, with the power to use violence over other people and violate their rights, in order to impose tradition, religion, and other generally right-wing values by force. However, the impermanence of human life almost always means that structures of power outlast the people who create them. Power is never a one-way street, and unnatural hierarchies can be—and almost always are— commandeered over time for use by people with vastly different values than the people who originally created those hierarchies. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written about extensively, this is especially prone to happen in political democracies, but it is a common theme for all power. History has shown that even monarchies and dictatorships tend to gradually become more “progressive” and abandon traditional values over time. The best solution is to reject all unnatural hierarchies and political power entirely, so that they may not be usurped by the enemies of what is good and right.

Libertarianism, then, is not apathetic. While it is understandable that the authoritarian-rightists make this mistake because so many so-called libertarians do the same thing, they should not be excused for their misunderstanding. It is not enough to point out examples of socially conservative libertarian theorists, as helpful as that may be. Ignorance about what libertarianism says– and what it does not– should be attacked and corrected wherever it is seen, rather than arguing on the terms of those who do not even comprehend what they are criticizing. Libertarians should remind their critics, again and again, that decentralization, peaceful social relations, private property, and self-determination are the only way forward for those who truly want to protect and promote their beliefs.