by Cassandra Dietman
It seems we have reached a very interesting and critical point on the timeline of Libertarianism. More and more people are rejecting the status quo, finding that the standard Democrat or Republican boxes just no longer fit, and they’re searching for something more. This is clearly a huge opportunity for us to expand our reach and legitimize our party. But what if we’re letting that opportunity pass us by? Are we in fact alienating potential voters? What if we’re alienating each other simply because we all land on different places of the liberty spectrum?
All libertarians tend to have the same goal – to advance liberty by limiting government. Yet we all have different ideas on how to achieve these goals, and we all have slightly different pictures of what a libertarian utopia might look like. Is this enough reason to resort to bashing, trolling, or even name-calling our fellow freedom fighters? What do we accomplish when we accuse someone of being a Republican only because they see a small, useful role for government, or because even though they think anarchy is ideal, they realize it’s just not a realistic goal? There’s a huge scale of libertarianism, and we cannot achieve a freer society by immediately rejecting any variation of your framed-and-mounted picture of liberty. [RELATED: What is a libertarian republic?]
On the most extreme end of the spectrum are the libertarians who feel that anything short of anarchy isn’t liberty. I’ve always felt that there’s merit to the anarchist position, but also I recognize that it’s a separate ideology. Libertarians generally believe that the best government is the smallest government – one that protects individual liberties, and protects those individuals from international threats. However, I’ve recently been told that since we’re on a trend of increasing liberty, we’re heading towards inevitable anarchy and that any other goals are actually anti-liberty.
I completely disagree with this sentiment.
More liberty is always a wonderful thing, but I think there’s a limit to how little government we can achieve in such a large and divided country. Think of it like the speed of transportation: We can keep finding ways to go faster, whether it’s on a bullet train or a supersonic jet, but eventually there’s a limit. We will never be able to pass the speed of light. It’s a fixed limitation of the physical world, and while someday we may find a loophole around it, we will never actually travel faster than 299,792, 458 meters per second. I think we have a similar limitation in reducing the size of government. Anarchy could be the best option, but it’s just not realistic. Even if anarchy were possible, how is it anti-liberty to make small concessions on the giant staircase to the ideal future?
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good debate. I like to think that I’m a pretty open-minded person. I love to learn new things and hear different ideas, and conversation is one of the best ways to do so. In fact, it’s how I learned I was a libertarian! But lately, conversations with fellow libertarians often leave me feeling exhausted, frustrated, and even defeated. I should leave these conversations feeling like I’m a part of something greater than myself, with new ideas on how to achieve our goals. Instead, at times I feel that all I’m doing is defending myself and others as libertarians. Why do we do this? It’s this kind of in-fighting that destroyed the Republican Party in 2008. How are we supposed to defend our ideas against traditional Democrats and Republicans if we’re too consumed with arguing the definition of libertarianism? Why can’t we accept that we’re not going to agree on everything, and that’s actually a pretty cool thing?
I suppose I shouldn’t be entirely surprised by this feeling of isolation from a group I so strongly identify with. I’m all too familiar with it. In high school, I was the goth kid shunned by the goths. I was the scholar cast from the smart kids. I guess I just don’t fit into other people’s boxes. What about the boxes of sexuality and gender? People have fought to erase these lines for years.
Since my teenage years, I’ve identified as pansexual. I don’t see gender as a defining quality in a partner. I love someone for their personality, and gender is just another physical characteristic, much like the color of someone’s eyes or hair. Should the LGBTQ community reject me because the person I’ve decided to spend my life with happens to be a man? Should I be defined by or even persecuted for that one small piece of who I am right now? Would it be right for the LGBTQ community to publicly cry, “She’s straight!” because I creep outside the borders of their box? I think it’s the exact same thing when libertarians denounce each other as Republicans, Tea Partiers, or Neo-Cons.
We all want the same thing: less government, more freedom. We all have different ideas on how to accomplish this. Does that really make some of us un-libertarian? I don’t care how someone chooses to self-identify. That’s a personal decision. While the extremists in any party are always able to do damage, I personally don’t care if you think you’re a libertarian but your views are a better match with the Tea Party. Political affiliation is a personal matter, and I don’t know if any other party has viewed it as something that must be earned as much as the Libertarian Party.
Where do the borders on your box lie?
