No one seems to know for sure what this means, but libertarians of all backgrounds are tweeting their support of the company’s CEO tweeting a link to the foundational book of one of the major schools of thought in Libertarianism.

Jack’s tweet has garnered approval from some prominent named Libertarian individuals and organizations, including former Congressman Justin Amash, 2020 LP vice-presidential candidate Spike Cohen, the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus, 2022 GA LP gubernatorial candidate Shane Hazel and many official accounts for several state branches of the Libertarian Party.

Some members of the liberty community joined in the thread to call for the Twitter CEO to cease his censorship of the liberty movement online and create a space that honors the spirit of the first amendment and the American tradition of free speech. 

The LP Mises Caucus even posted a screenshot of #Rothbard trending on Twitter nearly three hours after Jack tweeted out the link to a free online copy of “Anatomy of the State” published on Mises.org.

 Is the CEO of one the largest tech giants on the yellow brick road of libertarianism to AnCapistan? Only time will tell, but one thing is sure—this single act promoted the ideas of liberty, peace, and free markets—and that’s something worth celebrating.

The post Twitter CEO Rocks Libertarian Twitter With Mysterious Rothbard Tweet appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Being both a lover of the leaf and individual liberty, I would certainly say that I fall into the second group. Since my journey into the world of cigars began in January of 2019, I have learned something about the cigar industry that would benefit the liberty movement at large.

The cigar industry has experienced an enormous boom that has given the cigar smoker more variety than ever before in history. Cigars in the modern era have been going through a revolution similar to that of the craft beer industry in the 1970s. Today, it is impossible to list all of the different brands and blends that seem to pop up almost out of thin air. It is safe to say that this may very well be the best time in human history to be a cigar lover.

Something I have observed on my journey from being a novice cigar smoker to a blossoming cigar aficionado is the fact that there doesn’t seem to be an extreme sense of competition between any two companies. It could even be said that there is a spirit of camaraderie between those who make their living making premium cigars. I have yet to see any representative from one company speak ill of another maker. Every single maker in the market today seems focused on producing the best possible product for those of us who enjoy cigars.

If you spend as much time as I have learning about everything that goes into the making of a cigar, it won’t take long to realize that just because a cigar bears the name of one maker, doesn’t necessarily mean that it was produced in that company’s factories. For instance, Drew Estate’s popular infused line “Java” is blended by Rocky Patel. The “My Father” factory blends the “Broadleaf K222” for Tatuaje and “The Las Calaveras” for Crowned Heads, and the list could go on and on. Even America’s oldest and last operating cigar family, J.C. Newman, proudly sells sticks by the legendary brand Arturo Fuente, exemplifying this spirit of cooperation within the industry. Oliva Cigars, renowned for their quality and craftsmanship, similarly contribute to this ethos of mutual respect and collaboration.

If you watch the video below, you will even notice that America’s oldest and last operating cigar family, J.C. Newman, sells sticks by the legendary brand Arturo Fuente in their factory store in Tampa, Florida.

I believe that this beautiful partnership between cigar companies stems from three primary motivations:

1. A love for those big beautiful tobacco leaves that make up the components of a premium cigar.
2. A genuine desire to make the best possible cigars on the market today.
3. The government hates the cigar industry and wants to regulate their business into the ground. 

How does all this talk of rolled-up tobacco leaves have anything to do with the liberty movement at large? Let’s face facts— libertarians don’t have a good reputation when it comes to selling the ideas of economic and personal liberty to the general public. I am not interested in much of the drama and infighting that has long plagued the Libertarian Party, but I am very much interested in making the ideas of liberty appealing to the American people as a whole. 

In order to do this, I suggest we realize the reality of ever-growing government and the cancer of authoritarianism which develops as a natural byproduct. If we who call ourselves libertarians genuinely care about preserving freedom for ourselves and future generations, we must stop with purity tests and childish behavior. It is high time that we unite all the clans in the liberty movement, and put our brains and efforts together for our common cause. I’m not an oracle and I don’t possess all the answers to how this will be done, but I know we must successfully engage the culture and the political process. If we keep failing to do so, our movement and the future of freedom will be nothing more than a pile of ash.

The post Life, Liberty, and the Leaf: Lessons in Liberty from the Cigar Industry appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

If these two parties have failed to embrace the principles of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility, then the solution, according to Libertarians, is a viable third party that stands up for these core principles. On the surface, this argument seems compelling and intuitive. But it contains several problems.

To start, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a two-party system, as political parties are just vehicles to be used to advance a set of ideas. A critic may be quick to point out that a two-party system suppresses competition, and less competition means dramatically worse outcomes. But there’s no law or mandate preventing libertarians from running and winning on liberty ideals in a major party’s primary.

In fact, the evidence available suggests this is the best route. The most successful candidates sympathetic to or proponents of libertarianism have been members of the GOP. This list includes Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Gary Johnson, and Thomas Massie. And there are many more officials at the state level, thanks in part to Young Americans for Liberty’s “Operation Win at the Door” campaign.

It’s odd to claim the two-party system is suppressing competition when running for office in either major party is open to all—and has been the path to success for liberty advocates within the Republican Party. Of course, there is a percentage of people who belong to the GOP—perhaps a majority—that are not concerned with moving toward a freer society. Libertarians are quick to point this out.

But the Libertarian Party has its own divisions. For instance, the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus is fighting for control over the party, as many in this faction have felt the LP has been too amenable to those on the Left or people who consider themselves pragmatists. Plainly, divisions are part of any organization. They’ll be recognizable in a two-party, three-party or ten-party system.

Another common frustration expressed by Libertarian Party members is that they’ve tried working within the two-party system, but it’s inherently broken. At the risk of coming across as condescending, I would point out that the Libertarian Party has been working to advance liberty for more than four decades without much success.

The reasons for this are obvious. The two major parties have several advantages—a donor base, access to the media and debates, partisan voters, etc.

But all of these reasons serve to bolster the case for capturing a major party and shifting its ideology—or, at the very least, run campaigns in the GOP to elect liberty-minded legislators and executives.

In fact, I would go even further by suggesting any argument against running in the two major parties applies even more so to running as a member of the Libertarian Party because of the advantages discussed above.

Winning a nomination for a major party is the best of both words. Libertarians can fight for all of the things they believe in during a primary. And if they win, they head into a general election with advantages they would never have running as a third party candidate.

As I pointed out in January, Libertarian candidates unnecessarily put themselves at a disadvantage. So instead of rejecting the duopoly and all of its failings, Libertarians should consider leveraging its advantages to win elections and, ultimately, make life better for people.

In an era of lockdowns, record debt, and endless war, Libertarians and other friends of freedom can’t afford to play the long-game anymore. We need principled pragmatists that believe in fighting for a cause, and using the means currently at our disposal to see that cause to fruition.

The time to win is now.

The post Opinion: The Duopoly is Not the Problem appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Couples dealing with infertility issues have turned to alternatives like in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and paid surrogacy to make their dream of parenthood a reality. While openness to parenthood is a virtue, it should be pursued with a respect for life.

Unfortunately, options like IVF and paid surrogacy violate principles libertarians hold dear, such as the sanctity of life and self-ownership.

To understand why, it’s important to acknowledge that embryos used in IVF procedures represent a distinct human life. The only difference between an adult living today and a human embryo is their individual stage of development. While both differ in age, they are both persons. It’s this insight that makes IVF problematic, as it results in countless numbers of abandoned or discarded human embryos.

In other words, millions of human beings never get to experience life because they were deemed disposable in the process of, ironically, creating a new human life. This should cause problems for the libertarian, as the decision to destroy a human being in its early stage of development is an act of aggression.

While there’s an internal debate among libertarians about what constitutes aggression, the destruction of innocent human life is clear cut and cannot be sanctioned by any libertarian theory grounded in self-ownership and property rights.

But what if IVF didn’t result in ending a human life? Would it be morally right? I argue no because the embryo itself is not the property of any person. It is a unique human being with its own rights. While the burden of infertility is great, this does not imply a “right” to a child. Children—no matter where they are in their stage of development—are not the property of anyone, including their parents.

Consequently, procedures like IVF or paid surrogacy, while they involve self-owners (parents), they require the involuntary use of another self-owner (the human embryo). Given the importance of consent in a libertarian legal framework, the involuntary use of an embryo make IVF and surrogacy impermissible.

This doesn’t mean people struggling with infertility have no other moral options except to hope for a miracle. Treating infertility has come a long way over the last several decades with the introduction of NaProTECHNOLOGY—a woman’s health science that seeks to address underlying infertility issues with natural methods, along with medical and surgical treatments that cooperate with a woman’s body.

NaPro has the benefit of treating infertility without violating the sanctity of human life—and it’s more effective than IVF, according the the AMA Journal of Ethics, which found “…although achieving a live birth with NPT may take longer, it has a greater chance of occurring than with IVF.”

NaPro has also shown to be more effective in increasing pregnancies for women with certain health issues (ex. anovulation, endometriosis) than those women who use IVF.

Even with recent advancements, the use of NaPro isn’t widespread, despite its moral and practical advantages over IVF. Libertarians who care about the sanctity of life, reducing aggression in society and helping couples struggling with infertility should rethink IVF and surrogacy and embrace NaPro.

If the liberty movement is seriously committed to principles like non-violence and self-ownership, we need to be avid defenders of life at all stages of development. Because without life, there is no liberty.

The post The Libertarian Case Against IVF and Paid Surrogacy appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In a recent article for American Compass, Patrick Deneen criticized George Will and Brad Thompson for their defense of the classical liberal tradition’s role during the Founding. Part of Deneen’s article defends the idea that the Founding isn’t as libertarian as some are led to believe. While that’s an interesting question, Deneen makes a more radical claim about the country’s current state.

In his piece, Deneen laments America’s move toward libertarianism:

We have had a libertarian public policy imposed by the mainstream of each political party: libertarian economics by elites on the right, and libertarian social ethos by elites on the left.

Deneen cites two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (U.S. Forest Service & Bostock) in defense of his view. But even if we accept these rulings as libertarian victories, it doesn’t follow that the country is being held hostage by people who hold libertarianism in high regard. And while progress has been made on some fronts in the cause of liberty, we are far removed from a libertarian society. An objective review of the evidence makes this clear.

First, in just the last three months, governments at every level launched an assault on private property rights in an effort to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Politicians of both political parties imposed blanket shutdowns in nearly every state, bringing economic life to a halt for millions. To address the economic catastrophe brought on by these decisions, the federal government authorized almost $10 trillion in spending. That’s more than twice the size of the current federal budget.

Yes, there were certain policy decisions during the early stages of the pandemic that libertarians could support, but on net, we moved further towards authoritarianism.

It may be unfair to use the pandemic as an example given its uniqueness, so let’s look at economic policy pre-pandemic. Start with tariffs. Donald Trump’s obsession with trade deficits has led to one of the biggest tax increases in decades, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, the foundation asserts Trump’s tariffs could wipe out at least of third of the economic gains from the 2017 tax cuts package. This is hardly a libertarian policy victory.

On spending, even before the pandemic, Donald Trump and friends (Congress) had the federal government on a path to make trillion-dollar deficits the norm. This despite years of solid economic growth, which politicians of both parties could have used as an opportunity to cut spending. Instead, they spent wildly—a decision more consequential now considering the $4 trillion deficit, yes deficit, the federal government must contend with.

But maybe the era of deregulation is what Deneen is referring to. Governments have cut red tape furiously, creating the dog-eat-dog marketplace that libertarians have dreamed of for decades. Nope. As I wrote in these pages back in February, new federal rules hit almost 3,000 in 2019. America is far removed from a Randian paradise.

What about Deneen’s contention that the left is foisting its libertarian social ethos on the country? We could start with abortion. As I’ve argued previously, I don’t think libertarians can make a compelling defense of the pro-choice view without violating a staple of libertarian thought—the non-aggression principle. I realize many disagree, but fundamentally, I find it wrong to view abortion as just another choice that one should be free to make.

What separates many libertarians from the left though, is the latter’s effort to use government to impose or advance its own social agenda through government coercion. For example, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president wants to increase taxpayer funding for abortion access. One would find it difficult discover a libertarian who agrees with this position.

One issue that has divided libertarians—and is of concern for Deneen—is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock. Put aside the debate over the conservative intramural feud over textualism or originalism, and focus on a more fundamental principle. Should business owners have the right to hire and fire as they please? From the libertarian perspective, yes—as that would fall under the basic right to free association.

Does this mean that employers should fire someone because they identify as LGBTQ or Catholic or Atheist? In the vast majority of cases where religious freedom isn’t at issue, I would say no. And if someone does fire another person solely because they hate their lifestyle choices, the market (customers and employees) should be free to punish that person by withholding their money or labor.

It’s not libertarian to insert the federal government into a debate over discrimination. Although some libertarians cheered the decision, the libertarian theory of property rights requires allowing businesses to make those decisions and suffer the consequences if appropriate.

What people like Deneen, J.D. Vance, Josh Hawley and others failure to appreciate is the libertarian’s problem with coercion—and how it devalues the individual by stripping him of agency. That could take the form of tariffs imposed on goods or regulations that direct people how to run their business.

A proper understanding of libertarian philosophy on these and other issues should lead one to acknowledge that we live in an era of economic collectivism and social permissiveness in which the costs of bad decisions are borne by all of us. That’s a problem unique to the Leviathan, not libertarianism.

The post The Fictional Libertarian Assault on America appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Shumate: For our readers and listeners at The Libertarian Republic, tell us a little bit about who Kemo The Blaxician is for the people who don’t know you. Kind of give me a bit of your background.

KTB: Alright, so I am a West Coast, LA-based, African-American/Mexican-American Hip Hop artist and member of the rap group Delinquent Habits.

Shumate: I’m personally a big fan of your style, and I know a lot of that comes from being both a black American and a Latino American. Can you tell me a little bit about your background, what it was like growing up for you being both a Latino and a black American and how that kind of shaped your music and influenced your flavor?

KTB: Yeah, by the time I was about five or six, my folks split up and I grew up with my mom, and we grew up mostly in Mexican communities. I spent a lot of time growing mostly on the East side of Los Angeles, including the Monrovia projects, and did a lot of moving around through the East side – Cudahy and the Bell Gardens area. Eventually did the rest of my growing up in a little city called Norwalk and that’s what we dubbed the lower Eastside. During that time, I also had an opportunity to live with my dad and lived in a couple of different places as well, so I lived in Long Beach and also lived on the West side for a little while. So, it was diversified. I got exposed to all kinds of people in different kinds of neighborhoods.

Because of the diversity, it gave me an opportunity at an early age to meet all types from different demographics and different walks of life, and I made friends with a variety of folks. In that sense, I was pretty diversified, although mostly in Mexican communities and Mexican households. I did a lot of my growing up with a lot of Mexican influences, and then my stepfather came into the picture. He was my stepdad from a young age as well, and he’s originally from Mexico – from Guadalajara. I grew up with Spanish as my first language, and you know English… Obviously there’s no way I’m not going to know English. My mom is bilingual. My mom was a Mexican citizen who eventually became an American citizen. I remember when she did that. But again, just kind of a blend—you know what I’m saying? And in general just got to know all types of people, which let me move within communities pretty nicely.

Shumate: Kind of what you said about being a beautiful blend with a beautiful mind aye?

KTB: Yeah, man. To me, it’s a beautiful thing. It keeps me in this place where my mind is on this unified kind of thing. You know? I’m never looking out for just myself when it comes to doing good for the people. When I’m thinking of the people, yes, I want good for all the underdogs worldwide. You know what I mean? There’s Blacks and Latinos, but for everybody as well. Represent! I seek, and I fight the good fight for just the good of the people in general too.

Shumate: That’s right, I feel that.

Shumate: The Libertarian philosophy is all about personal freedom and living how you want to live provided that you don’t hurt anybody else. So whatever you want to do..live however you want to live as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody and makes you happy. Can you tell me a little bit about your song “That’s When She Died”? It talks a lot about big government and control and government trying to control people’s lives. That’s really what libertarians fight against, so can you tell me a little bit about your song and the frame of mind you were in when you wrote it?

KTB: That song I wrote it in 2010.. maybe 2009, it came out in 2010. It was really like a transitional period of waking up from a deep sleep and that realization of hidden agendas, of monetary motives, things that kind of motivated some of the country’s decisions are not always the way we are taught growing up. Growing up, you’re taught a certain history, but it leaves out some portions of it and it leaves out motive and that kind of thing. After you start doing a little bit of research it sheds light on why some things really played out as they did. I think during that time “That’s When She Died” it was that realization that oh, ok, these kind of things have been going on in the country and we were told one story and a lot of times it’s for the good of the people, but a lot of times it’s got to be for the good of the country. I think you said before we have our warts. It was kind of really discovering some of that stuff. It was the death of a certain perception and an opening to another. Realizing that it’s not all as it’s painted to be and just staying woke. It’s not one of those things where you don’t want to love your county. I grew up being a proud American, and I think that’s a great thing to be. It’s also being truthful with yourself and realizing that the business of government is very complex and can be really ugly at times all over the place.

Watch the full interview with Kemo here:

As Kemo would say, “Be Free, just don’t hurt anybody!”

Image: Wikimedia

The post Kemo The Blaxican: Life, Liberty, and Latin Lingo appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Woods and Smith focused a great deal on Amash’s temperament and how he conveys his ideas in public. For example, Woods took issue with Amash’s arguments regarding the right process for going to war. I found this criticism odd because it’s a point Ron Paul has made consistently over the years: only Congress can declare war.

Does that mean Amash and other libertarians shouldn’t emphasize the barbarism of war? Absolutely not. But even insisting on a declaration of war and promising to bring troops home in the absence of a declaration sets Amash apart from the vast majority of people in Congress. Additionally, Amash recently tweeted the U.S. should only get involved in just wars. Woods and Smith likely missed this tweet given the timing of their conversation, but nonetheless, it demonstrates Amash’s commitment to a rational and constitutional foreign policy.

Woods and Smith also criticized Amash for not coming out forcefully enough against the lockdowns, claiming he is focusing too much on procedure. But procedure is important. Following the proper legislative process can preserve liberty—not always, of course, but more so than a governor or president unilaterally making decisions. Still, Amash has criticized the lockdowns, as demonstrated by his opposition to the Michigan governor’s absurd abuse of power in response to COVID-19.

More recently, in an interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie, Amash questioned the need for mandatory lockdowns, pointing out that people voluntarily isolated when the threat from the virus was apparent. Could Amash have been more strident in his criticism? Sure. Would it have been wise to do so? Probably not. And I see this as one of the dividing points among libertarians. Amash is, temperamentally, a moderate. He doesn’t throw verbal bombs. His style isn’t in-your-face.

Woods and Smith are concerned about his approach because they feel, given the times, someone needs to stand in stark contrast to Biden and Trump. However, in the past, both Woods and Smith have defended the strategy of meeting people where they are and not leading with radical suggestions—like abolishing the CIA—because many people aren’t ready for that. And I agree with them.

However, I do feel Amash strikes the right balance between being principled and politically savvy in how he presents libertarian ideas. I think Woods and Smith are overly critical of the latter and don’t give Amash nearly enough credit for the former.

To be fair, Woods and Smith did acknowledge Amash as being one of the best people in Congress during their conversation. That’s why so many people are excited about Amash’s candidacy. It’s also the reason why admonishing Amash about his position on something like the Paycheck Protection Program is unfair given his record, not to mention the fact that we’re in the middle of a pandemic—and many libertarians, at least initially, were divided or hesitant about offering a solution for dealing with COVID-19.

Finally, on the impeachment issue, Woods and Smith went after Amash for being complicit in a coup because Amash supported impeaching the president. Smith and Woods took issue with the impeachment process, which is interesting considering they criticized Amash for emphasizing process problems on other issues earlier in their conversation. Smith even went so far as to suggest Amash shouldn’t be the Libertarian Party nominee because he sided with the CIA in trying to impeach the president. Yet, if we turn this argument around, it would place Smith and Woods on the side of Trump, whose libertarian bona fides are lacking to say the least.

Of course, Smith and Woods are solid on pretty much every issue, so to try and label them Trump supporters would be laughable. Likewise, Amash had his own reasons for impeachment, some of which could be described as libertarian. The fact that he found himself on the same side as some U.S. intelligence officials does not mean we should label him as a supporter of the “deep state.”

Though I’m not a fan of the Libertarian Party, if Amash gets the nomination, I will vote for him because he represents a radical (on issues) departure from the bipartisan consensus committed to increasing the size and scope of government.

I know libertarians will continue to disagree, but we need to give Amash some grace. It’s not necessary or even advisable that he always come across as a Rothbardian when given the chance.

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Opinion: Tom Woods and Dave Smith Are Wrong About Justin Amash appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But I also know governments’ response to the crisis has life and death implications. And we need to be forceful in opposing decisions that would result in even greater harm. Though the fight over the country’s future isn’t front-and-center in many Americans’ minds, libertarians need to be prepared to articulate why a freer society is crucial to recovery and the best way to prepare for another pandemic.

Let’s start with economic freedom. It’s an idea that has lifted billions out of poverty and created enormous sums of wealth, enabling us to fight back against the deadly coronavirus. Expanding economic freedom has never been more important. It’s what will accelerate a recovery, but it requires tearing down barriers—high taxes, wasteful spending, burdensome regulations, etc.—that have suppressed wealth creation and denied so many a chance at a better life.

The lesson from the Depression of 1920-21 is instructive. If you’ve never heard of it, that’s probably because it ended so quickly. In response to a sharp economic downturn during the early 20s, the federal government slashed spending and allowed the free market to work. The economy quickly recovered and paved the way for the “Roaring Twenties.” This example demonstrating the power of markets stands in stark contrast to the Great Depression, which was prolonged by government intervention and only ended after the market was allowed to recover from WWII.

Hopefully officials learn from lessons past because governments all across the country are dealing with their own economic and fiscal crises. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the federal budget deficit is projected to be $3.8 trillion this fiscal year. And it’s likely to rise even higher after Congress passes another spending package to aid businesses and states dealing with the coronavirus. For context, the entire federal budget in 2015 was $3.7 trillion.

Had governments done a better job of controlling spending, both the public and private sectors would be in a better position to respond to the pandemic. Instead, the federal government is running historic deficits; the Federal Reserve has engaged in an unprecedented expansion of lending; and, state and local officials are begging for bailouts.

This crisis should not be used to prop up irresponsible governments and lock in entrenched bureaucracies. Governments and other independent agencies should respond to these challenges by reducing spending and restructuring operations so they are leaner and in a better position to weather future crises.

Federal officials should consider redirecting current spending to offset the cost of a fourth coronavirus relief package likely to be approved by Congress within the next few weeks. A great place to start looking for spending offsets is the list of recommendations put together by Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. The federal government should also attach strings to any federal aid, ensuring state and local governments and agencies use the money as a bridge to recovery, not a temporary crutch that enables profligacy.

Finally, we need radical decentralization. The response to health emergencies should not be tied to federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Top down systems squash innovation, which can lead to deadly repercussions. Permanently relaxing or eliminating restrictions on things like testing and vaccines must be a top priority after the crisis passes.

Another factor hindering a response to the virus is the dependency of states and businesses on the federal government. It’s the product of our collective failure to stop the growth of the leviathan. Washington D.C. has grown its power at the expense of all of us, along with state and local governments. New York is, unfortunately, a good example.

D.C. consistently takes more money from New Yorkers in taxes then it sends back to the state in federal aid. This is problematic for a number of reasons, including limiting what states like New York can do in response to a pandemic. Decentralization mitigates this problem by allowing more resources and power to stay with people in the states rather than concentrating it in D.C. where it is often misused or abused.

Decentralization should also take the form of repealing laws and regulations that artificially restrict the supply of medical services and personnel, leaving decisions about allocating resources to the marketplace instead of government bureaucrats or special interests looking to protect themselves from competition. Empowering the private sector is the best way to save lives.

The road ahead will be difficult. Libertarians are going to have to fight harder than ever to ensure long existing and newly adopted government policies are not part of our new normal.

Our lives and liberty depend on it.

The post What Should a Post-Pandemic America Look Like? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Yet, politics is only one aspect of our lives. People make all types of decisions that intimately affect others outside the realm of politics. This is not an argument for government intervention. The government’s track record in fixing any large-scale social problem is beset with unintended consequences, corruption and failure.

Rather, this insight (not novel in any way) should encourage libertarians to embrace love. And it’s not the love we associate with romantic feelings or other bonds established with family and friends. It’s the love defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas as willing the good of the other.

Many people think of love as just a feeling or an emotion. It’s also a choice. If we love someone—in the Thomistic sense—we want what’s best for that person. And in many cases, telling someone to live however they choose even if that means engaging in self-destructive behavior, is not a good philosophy for life outside of politics.

Libertarians should want to promote human flourishing by willing what’s good for others. To make this a little less abstract, take drug use as an example. Should libertarians support prison time for people who use drugs? Of course not. However, that does not mean libertarians should encourage drug use or be indifferent to the question. Although drug use is a non-violent act, it has the potential to harm the user and those closest to him.

Failing to love has another consequence: justification for growing government. When we ignore or act indifferent toward certain decisions or behaviors, disastrous consequences usually follow—producing addiction, poverty, broken families and many other societal ills. When these ills tear apart communities, many look to government for a solution, which usually leads to a further erosion of our agency.

In other words, individual choices that may not violate libertarian principles could lead to a loss of freedom. Our choices matter. This may seem obvious, but in a society quick to shout “don’t judge,” it’s helpful to reinforce the truth.

In contrast to indifference or acceptance of certain cultural attitudes is what scholars call the “success sequence.” None of its components are inherently libertarian but they represent a powerful approach to escaping poverty. The sequence goes like this: finish high school, get a job, get married, and then have children after age 21. According to research, 73 percent of whites and 59 percent of blacks who followed this sequence reached the middle class.

Encouraging people to follow the success sequence isn’t a requirement to be a libertarian, but it is one important way to will the good of others and build a society that is freer and wealthier. When people make good decisions, it leaves little need for government to act.

One final point: it’s important to note that individual behaviors are not the only contributor to human welfare. Government polices can and have had deleterious effects on communities across the country. Bad schools, poor business climates, punitive criminal justice systems and other bad public policies can keep people from reaching their potential and prompting human flourishing.

If we want to move toward a truly free society, we have to address the ills caused by government and the prevailing culture. With our current political climate so consumed with hate, now is a perfect time for libertarians to lead with love.

The post Why Libertarians Should Embrace Love appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Libertarians find themselves on both sides of the issue, though nearly six in ten could be best described as pro-choice. The Libertarian Party’s official position is that the government should not play a role, leaving the individual to decide if abortion is appropriate.

Is this the proper libertarian position? Answering this question requires a review of common libertarian arguments in support of legal abortion.

1) The government has no right to tell women what to do with their body.

This is probably the most popular libertarian argument in favor of legalized abortion, as it’s grounded in the idea of self-ownership. However, the argument fails to account for a critical fact: a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy affects more than just her body. At the moment of fertilization (or conception), there is a distinct human life inside the mother. This is a universally acknowledged fact by embryologists.

Consequently, libertarians cannot appeal to self-ownership to justify legal abortion just as they couldn’t appeal to the concept to justify punching an innocent person in the face because the assailant owns his own fist. The implications of adding another human being into the discussion should change the calculus of libertarians.

The act of abortion is a violation of the unborn’s right to self-ownership and rises to the level of initiating violence, which violates the non-aggression axiom—a pillar of libertarian thought. Using this framework to analyze other libertarian arguments in favor of legal abortion is critical to ensuring a proper understanding of the philosophy. With this framework in place, let’s look at three other arguments.

2) Criminalizing abortion won’t prevent the practice.

I acknowledge criminalizing abortion will not necessarily stop all people from performing or requesting abortions. Yet, just as it would be wrong to legalize murder or rape because it doesn’t prevent people from committing these heinous acts, one shouldn’t justify abortion on the same grounds. I posit the number of abortions would decline if they were made illegal given the inherent risk of engaging in illegal activity, but as the drug war clearly shows, criminalizing a behavior doesn’t eliminate that behavior.

However, this argument primarily involves a question of justice. Yes, some people will continue to break the law, but if the unborn really are human beings, criminalizing the practice opens the door to punishing people who take a human life. Justice requires each person is given their due. A legal abortion regime perverts justice because it allows for the taking of human life without any legal consequences. (This is not to discount the emotional, psychological and physical consequences of abortion, which can be painful for those involved.)

3) Criminalizing abortion will put women in danger.

Any loss of life is tragic. The year before Roe, 39 women died as a result of an abortion. Pro-life activists are quick to point to this statistic to refute those who claim countless numbers of women would die if abortion is criminalized. And while they’re correct to highlight such exaggerated claims, there’s a larger issue that must be addressed.

Abortion is unsafe for 100 percent of the unborn. It’s a distortion of morality to defend the legalization of a practice that results in the near certain end of a human life to prevent the possibility of another death. In an alternative world where abortion is illegal, reducing the number of deaths would require education and support (financial, emotional, etc.) for women who are considering abortion to dissuade them from ending their pregnancy. This is the only moral solution to preventing unwanted deaths.

4) Criminalizing abortion would require a totalitarian state.

Pursuing justice for the unborn is possible without increasing the size and scope of government. Libertarians understand the inherent problems with the criminal justice system. Too many people are behind bars. Rights are violated on a daily basis. And the system breeds recidivism rather than helping people transition back to normal life. Libertarians worry these problems would be exacerbated if abortion were illegal.

Yet, similar to the third argument above, this possibility doesn’t justify sanctioning the certain loss of life under a legal abortion regime. Moreover, to protect the truly innocent from being prosecuted, say in the event of a miscarriage, libertarians should and have supported criminal justice reforms (ending coercive plea bargaining, repealing malum prohibitum offenses, requiring law enforcement to carry liability insurance, etc.) that serve as a bulwark for people’s rights. It is possible to protect the unborn and the rights of the accused. Suggesting otherwise is a false choice

If there comes a day when abortion is outlawed, it will be incumbent upon all of us to help both women (and men) to see the beauty of life and provide the support they need to raise a child—a responsibility that surpasses all others.

The post Can Libertarians Justify Legal Abortion? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.