Top Five Misconceptions About Libertarians

by Ian Tartt

To cover all the misconceptions about libertarians/libertarianism would take far too much space for just one article. So instead, let’s take a look at the top five most common misconceptions and see if they hold up under scrutiny.1. Libertarians Hate Poor People

This charge is often levied at libertarians in discussions about repealing the minimum wage, ending government intervention in healthcare, and switching from state welfare programs to private charity. The underlying idea is that opposing government programs that are designed to aid poor people means libertarians either hate poor people or don’t care about them. This is hardly a new idea; classical liberal economist and writer Frederic Bastiat wrote about it as far back as 1850. In “The Law”, he gave us this highly memorable quote:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

With this in mind, it’s easy to see that somebody who opposes a government welfare program doesn’t automatically oppose relief efforts for poor people. Libertarians who oppose government welfare do so because they believe that private charity is a more efficient way of taking care of poor people, a more moral way to care for them, or both. If more people who support government welfare realized this, then there could be much better conversations about the subject than there are now.

2. Corporations Would Rule in a Libertarian Society

Routinely in fictitious works, corporations are the bad guys. Movies such as “Robocop” and “WALL-E” have corporations either controlling the government or acting in place of the government; with such power, they can do anything they want. Is that the way it would work in a libertarian society?

Historically, that wasn’t the case. When they didn’t have state-protected benefits and handouts, businesses could and did fail. Even those that attempted to form cartels couldn’t do so without government assistance. The freer the market, the harder it is for a few businesses to rise to the top and crush their competitors.

In the present system of corporate welfare, licenses, high corporate taxes, countless regulations, government-business partnerships, and intellectual property laws, almost every trace of the free market has been eliminated. Small businesses often can’t afford to keep up with the endless regulations, taxes, and licenses, which means the playing field is tilted in favor of big businesses that have the resources to comply with everything or pay the fines that accompany violations. With this in mind, it’s no wonder that few small businesses last long and it’s many big businesses that continue year after year (especially those that form conglomerations). Returning to a free market by removing any government regulations that unfairly favor some businesses while hurting others will level the playing field and make businesses more accountable to competition and customers. Thus, anyone concerned about big businesses taking over should favor free markets to excessive regulations.

3. Libertarianism Wouldn’t Work

A common claim from those across the entire political spectrum, those who state this claim often say that libertarianism is “too idealistic” or “utopian”, and sometimes say that it’s never been tried before. One complicating factor in this sort of discussion is that there are many different types of libertarianism, so it’s not always clear which type is being discussed. Many consider the Constitution to be a libertarian or semi-libertarian document, and until the late 1800s, the US for the most part had limited government and free markets. During this time, living conditions continually increased, the cost of living decreased, and new technology and new innovations appeared that made life easier and more pleasurable. If this doesn’t signify success in the real world, what does?

All right, but if libertarianism can still work, where are the modern libertarian countries? Well, it has less to do with the effectiveness of libertarian ideas and more to do with the present political incentives in place. Given the enormous amount of wealth and influence that modern politicians enjoy having, expecting even a quarter of them to willingly give that up would be unrealistic. And then there are all the people who benefit from existing government programs, including beneficiaries of corporate welfare, recipients of food stamps, and retirees dependent on Social Security. Those people are going to vote to continue (as well as expand) the policies and programs that put money in their pockets and food on their tables (more information on this subject can be found here). These are some of the reasons that most countries today are anything but libertarian.

4. Libertarians are Republican-lite

Because libertarians share some viewpoints with Republicans (such as general opposition to welfare programs and support of gun rights) and talk about lower taxes and less government, they are often accused of being Republican-lite. This accusation fails because even though libertarians have some things in common with Republicans, there are far more differences than similarities between the two groups.

Although many Republicans (both politicians and civilians) talk about limited government, overall they vote for and support big government. When it comes to corporate welfare, drug prohibition, Social Security, military spending, foreign aid, and the Federal Reserve, the average Republican has little to nothing in common with the average libertarian on any of these issues. While there are some Republicans who truly favor smaller government, most support sustaining the current size and power of the state or even increasing it.

On the other hand, most libertarians favor drastically cutting each of these, eliminating some entirely, and support getting the state out of our lives as much as possible (anarchists favor abolishing the state, but most libertarians aren’t anarchists, and thus they support the existence of a limited state).

The important thing to keep in mind is not what Republicans and libertarians say, but what they do. Talking about small government while voting for big government is something more often done by Republicans than libertarians, and because actions speak louder than words, the decisions made at the ballot box reveal one’s true beliefs far better than anything they say.

5. Libertarians Just Want to Get High

Libertarians frequently talk about ending the War on Drugs. As a result, they’re often accused of supporting drug legalization/ending drug prohibition merely because they want to get high without risking prison time. While this may be true for some, the majority of libertarians oppose drug prohibition for other reasons.

The primary reason for this is self-ownership. Libertarians say that you own your body and thus have the right to put into it anything you want, even if it’s bad for you. This applies, but is not limited, to fast food, desserts, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, and even illegal drugs. Because of this, libertarians believe that nobody should be punished for putting something into their body, whether that substance is legal or illegal.

The other main reason libertarians oppose the War on Drugs is because of the negative effects it’s created. For one thing, the militarization of the police has largely come about due to drug prohibition. Some may say that this is so that police can better confront drug cartels, but even if that’s the case, it’s not always the way it works. Far too many people have learned this the hard way; some innocent people are shot and killed when police invade their homes by mistake when they thought they were invading the home of a drug dealer or gang member, and some kids are severely injured or even killed when flashbang grenades are thrown into their playpens.

Additionally, ending the War on Drugs would also take power and profit away from drug cartels, the same way ending alcohol prohibition took power and profit away from bootleggers. If all drugs could be manufactured and sold by pharmacies, the costs would come down enormously, and who wouldn’t prefer buying from a pharmacy over a street dealer? And anybody addicted to drugs who wanted to seek help could do so without fear of going to prison, which would essentially ruin their lives due to having a felony on their record, being isolated so long from their friends and family members, and being surrounded by violent inmates for many years. If someone who got busted for illegal drugs is released from prison, they’ll likely turn to violent crime to make ends meet. This is one way that drug prohibition increases violence: by turning peaceful people into violent criminals, creating a cycle of violence in which crime and police aggression escalate endlessly unless prohibition ends.

Lastly, ending the War on Drugs would give the police more time to go after murderers, rapists, thieves, and other violent criminals; currently, they have less time to pursue these truly dangerous people because they also have to go after peaceful (more often than not) drug users. And the end of drug prohibition would free up billions of dollars every year that could either be spent on more productive activities or returned to the taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. If this doesn’t convince someone that libertarians aren’t calling for ending the War on Drugs just so they can get high, then it’s likely that nothing will.