We recently went over the A word, but now its time to review another word of somewhat equal apprehension – the dreaded L word. The L word is becoming more accepted these days, but, much like the A word, it can still rouse anger from “the Right” and “the Left.” The L word typically seeks to gently walk a conversation into the topic of smaller government, yet still enrages self-proclaimed conservatives. As well, in more Left-ish circles, it may be employed to proclaim your stance on individual rights, in complete agreement to remove bureaucratic top-down control of free expression or association. Yet, it ushers in accusations of being an undercover conservative that wants corporations to murder its customers.
Obviously, the L word is libertarian. Most people of the consistent libertarian variety will acknowledge that the L word is gentler than the A word. And in most cases they are correct. However, the use of it can be just as divisive.
Liber-what?
A libertarian typically falls into one of two categories. “Big L” Libertarian refers to the Libertarian Party, and “small l” libertarian essentially expresses the same value spectrum, but rejects the political party baggage. In the last few years, the Libertarian Party has grown more than it has in the last few decades. With the rise of lowered trust in politicians across the board, people are generally more welcoming to the idea of a third party. Of course, that’s not without its share of issues. One example would be attracting supporters that might be looking for a new vehicle for their own political ambitions, rather than taking on the principles of libertarianism. This is just as much a marketing faux pas from the Libertarian Party, as they’ve placed people into the spotlight that couldn’t articulate what a libertarian is. As well, we’ve seen members try to overturn convention through wild public spectacles.
There are objections from the average consumer of political discussion, and discord, that don’t get passed the surface, and aren’t too inside baseball. In my opinion, a distaste for an individual in the party, or the philosophy, at least shows a more in-depth recognition than just rhetorical opportunities to not think outside of a two party system.
Libertine vs. Libertarian
For those identifying in parties or philosophies on “the Right”, the L word places us immediately into a discussion about morality. The reason is that libertarian has been largely confused with libertine. Where any category on the right, like conservative or Republican, has become synonymous with traditional family and biblical values, libertarian has become that with hedonism.
The immediate assumption is that the Marquis de Sade is your philosophy’s pinnacle, and can lead to a need for major correction on your part. However, with a little effort, you might be able to come to an understanding when you explain to them that its closer to the writtings of Thomas Jefferson. But the libertine assumption still stands on a libertarian’s staunch opposition to victimless crimes. Simply, these are crimes that do not have a victim. It may seem obvious, but today’s current culture, whether we realize it or not, assumes that law, and the enforcement thereof, is what keeps a society moral. The problem for someone of traditional or biblical values is that you now seem like you are defending actions that directly contradict your faith’s beliefs. For the libertarian, a crime requires a victim, essentially someone stolen from or physically hurt. Owning, growing, or smoking marijuana is an example of a victimless crime because no one is injured. You may have to dispel many myths about marijuana, but you should be able to explain how a victimless crime may be bad for the consumer, while not being something they should be fined or thrown in prison for.
If you’re having a particularly successful conversation, you may be able to flip the morality table with the inclusion of victimless crimes as a talking point. Opposition to libertarianism on purely moral grounds typically has a hard time explaining the morality of creating victims from victimless crimes through legislation. It introduces people that have not hurt or stolen from anyone, into a life long prison sentence or felony record, while also creating endless opportunities for police brutality.
Rich Uncle Pennybags
Groups on the Left despise the inherent selfishness cast upon libertarianism. While it’s true that a hyper-selfish and self-motivated person can thrive under libertarian principles and policies, it is a mistake to think that is what libertarian principles and polices require, or create. The stereotype you will encounter here is that you are a heartless human of the worst kind: a product of the Monopoly Man and Ayn Rand. Rotten to your core, you enjoy stealing money from individuals to further your own well being. Obviously, you can easily exonerate yourself from this accusation, but you will need to choose the right path first.
The subcategory of the lefty will usually determine the direction of the conversation for the selfish libertarian. If they are a Democrat, you’ll likely have a conversation similar to the Republican about the failure of a third party. Depending on how opaque the blinders are, you should be able to show the failure of the Democratic Party to follow through with its altruistic rhetoric. If it’s a progressive, you’ll likely address the nature of giving and taking. This is the moral angle that supersedes most objections, be it the Right or the Left. Besides, the truth is that all humans, especially politicians, are inherently self-serving. The idea that you can force people to work for others is nothing short of endorsing slavery, and social programs require just that. Even though this line or reasoning is of a hyperbolic nature in our current indoctrinated climate of approving forced charity, it doesn’t take long to convince someone of your position even if they think it’s still your duty to care for others. This brings your conversation to the term Voluntaryism.
Christian-liber-selfish-immoral-hypocrite
Both ends of the moral objection zero in on your Christian faith. We are to give to, and care for, the needy. We are to reject sinful lifestyles. Both ends of the spectrum have a biblical case, be it subjective of limits or association. But the Christian libertarian always has consistency on their side.
We are to give, but not force someone else to give through threats of violence. The social programs advocated by any legislation from any partisan supporter essentially boil down to threats. Christian giving is truly charity. Yes, we should give, but we should not force others to give.
The sinful lifestyle accusation doesn’t even have to be pointed toward you. Vices such as gambling, drugs, or alcohol are the primary objections. For the Christian libertarian, though, we are free to say that we may not even advocate the use of these things, and are more strongly opposed to the violence associated with their enforcement. Even if we think someone needs help for addiction to vices, we know that they will only get that help through means of decriminalization.
__________________________
__________________________
Find it on 
