The core principle of the libertarian philosophy is what is called the non-aggression principle. It holds that people should be free to live their lives any way they choose, so along as their conduct doesn’t involve the initiation of force or fraud against others. In other words, no murder, rape, stealing, burglary, trespass, fraud, robbery, or other action that infringes on the rights of others to live their lives the way they choose.
Thus, libertarians advocate the dismantling, repeal, or abolition of every program, law, department, or agency that is based on the initiation of force.
Example: the war on drugs and the DEA. Since people have the right to live their lives the way they choose, they have the right to ingest whatever they want, no matter how harmful, damaging, unhealthy, or irresponsible it might be. Therefore, drug prohibition is illegitimate under the libertarian philosophy. Drug laws should be abolished, along with the DEA, the agency charged with enforcing the drug war.
Unfortunately, for the past 30 years there has been a segment within the libertarian movement that advocates reforms of America’s welfare-warfare state way of life. What’s wrong with that? Nothing per se. People have the right to advocate whatever they want.
The problem, however, is that reform-oriented libertarians have couched their reform proposals as “libertarian” when advocating them to the general public. In the process, they have diluted or corrupted the libertarian brand of principled libertarianism. That’s why today many people have no idea what libertarians stand for or, even worse, are convinced that libertarianism is nothing more than a rightwing philosophy.
Let’s take a look at just two examples of this phenomenon — school vouchers and Social Security.
Thirty years ago, some libertarians began embracing school vouchers as an educational reform measure. The principal proponent of school vouchers was the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. His argument was that school vouchers were a “transition” device that would ultimately lead to the end of state involvement in education, which is the libertarian ideal.
Thirty years later, school vouchers remain a popular reform position among many libertarians. Most proponents of school vouchers today, however, reject Friedman’s “transition” argument and make their case for vouchers by arguing that “choice” and “competition” will actually improve the public (i.e., government) school system.
Lost in all this, however, has been the non-aggression principle, the core principle of the libertarian philosophy. School vouchers are based on the initiation of force. They rely on the force of taxation to take money from one group of people in order to give it to another group of people. That’s a classic socialist concept, just as public schooling itself is.
Thus, even if Friedman had been right with respect to his “transition” argument, the fact is that libertarian voucher proponents would be advocating the initiation of force throughout the period of the “transition,” which could be decades. How good is a philosophy when it is based on a decades-long violation of the core principle of the philosophy?
Thirty years after Friedman began advocating vouchers, it’s safe to say that he was wrong about “transitioning.” Milwaukee, for example, has had school vouchers for 30 years. The public-school system is still going strong. In fact, by placing private schools on the school voucher dole and under state regulation, vouchers have actually made the education situation worse from a libertarian perspective.
Libertarian voucher proponents who resorted to the “improve public schools” justification for vouchers were right to reject Friedman’s “transition’ argument. But the problem is that such libertarians, for the past several decades, have been communicating to people the notion that libertarianism is all about saving and improving socialism, which is what public schooling is. Needless to say, that has diluted the libertarian brand of principled libertarianism.
It’s no different with Social Security, which is the crown jewel of American socialism. For the past 30 years, there has been a segment within the libertarian movement that has devised plans to reform, fix, save, improve, modify, or “privatize” this socialist program. One big problem is that every such reform measure involves the initiation of force, a violation of the core principle of the libertarian philosophy. Moreover, in the process of coming up with reform measures to save and improve Social Security, such libertarians have communicated that saving and improving socialism is what libertarianism is all about.
Think back to 19th-century slavery. Imagine we are all transported back to 1855 Alabama. I’d say: Let’s leave slavery reform to the conservatives and liberals, even if such reforms would improve the lot of the slaves. I’d say: Let us libertarians stand steadfastly in favor of immediately abolishing, dismantling, repealing, and ending slavery.
Today, I say: Let’s leave welfare-warfare state reform to conservatives and liberals. Let us libertarians raise a standard to which all advocates of liberty can repair. Let us restore the libertarian brand to one of principled libertarianism. Let us adhere to our core principle — the non-aggression principle. Let us reject socialism in all its variations. Let us reject reform plans to save or improve socialism. Let us libertarians be the ones who lead America and the world to liberty.
The post Libertarians Should Reject School Vouchers and Social Security Reform appeared first on The Future of Freedom Foundation.
The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy. The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Visit https://www.fff.org