Among descriptions of political libertarianism, “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” probably takes the prize for both simplicity and frequency of use.

It’s especially useful in an election year. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate generally faces high media access barriers and limited opportunities to reach “low-information voters” with the elevator pitch for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, and less warlike government.

It’s pithy. It’s easily, if not necessarily accurately, understood. It associates itself with the two of the most mainstream/popular American political tendencies.  What’s not to like?

I don’t use the slogan much, though. I don’t really consider it very accurate. I know many “socially conservative” (often, though not always, due to their personal religious beliefs) and “fiscally liberal” (often, though not always, due to their historical analysis of phenomena like corporations and taxation) libertarians. And an op-ed gives me a little bit more room to elaborate than a politician’s elevator pitch. So hang in there with me, please.

What differentiates libertarianism from other political ideologies isn’t just a utilitarian or consequentialist claim as to “what works best.”

What differentiates libertarianism from other political ideologies is a moral claim: The claim that it is wrong to initiate force.

That’s a moral claim you probably grew up with as an individual.

The people who shaped your worldview as a child — parents, teachers, etc. — almost certainly taught you libertarianism as a matter of basic individual morality. In the words of libertarian author Matt Kibbe: “Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff.” Words to live by.

Libertarians extend that moral claim to everyone and to all organizations, including government.

Just as it’s wrong for me to steal $50 from your wallet, it’s wrong for government to steal $50 from your paycheck.

Just as it’s wrong for me to burn down your house or shoot you other than in self-defense, it’s wrong for government to conduct itself violently against the non-violent.

To the extent that a “social contract” can really be said to exist, that’s the whole of it — don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff, in return for which we need not tolerate others hurting  us and taking our stuff.

You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don’t forcibly inflict those beliefs on others.

Libertarianism is a “deontological” (morality-based) rather than “consequentialist” (outcome-based) position.

Happily, however, it’s not a fiat iustitia ruat caelum — “let justice be done though the heavens fall” — position, because its application won’t bring the heavens down. It really DOES produce better outcomes than state edict backed by force.

Unhappily, it doesn’t easily translate to the electoral politics “elevator pitch”/”low-information voter” environment.

But if you’ve read this far, you’re an off-the-elevator “high-information voter” now. Remember, come November.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Will you accept the jury’s outcome,” ABC’s  David Muir asked US president Joe Biden concerning his son Hunter’s trial on federal gun charges, “their verdict, no matter what it is?”

Biden: “Yes.”

Muir: “And have your ruled out a pardon for your son?”

Biden: “Yes.”

The younger Biden faces up to 25 years in prison for allegedly making false statements (to the effect that he wasn’t a drug user)  while filling out a form to purchase a gun, and possessing the gun while being a drug user.

Biden SHOULD pardon his son — not out of fatherly love, but because the charges are both inherently evil and clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.

Last things first:

The US Constitution declares itself “the supreme law of the land,” and according to its Second Amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” See that period at the end there? There are no added exceptions for drug users, or for anyone else. And as Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out in Marbury v. Madison, “an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

As a matter of law, prosecutors should never have brought these particular charges against Hunter Biden. As a matter of law, the judge in the trial should have dismissed them the instant they were brought. And as a matter of practical deterrence, the judge should have sanctioned the prosecutors, up to and including seeking their disbarment, for bringing them. Hunter Biden may well be guilty of real crimes, but these aren’t real crimes whether the charges accurately describe his actions or not.

On the moral side:

Whether Hunter Biden used drugs and whether Hunter Biden owned a gun were never any of the US government’s business.

The right to smoke, snort, inject, or otherwise ingest any substance one pleases is a natural human right that exists independently of, and supersedes, government edict.

The right to acquire and possess arms — of any kind — is likewise a natural human right that exists independently of, and supersedes, government edict.

All people had those rights before the Constitution was ratified, and all people will still have those rights after the Constitution and the government claiming that Constitution as the basis for its power, have disappeared.

Those rights belong to you. They belong to me. They belong to Hunter Biden. And they belong to the hundreds of thousands of Americans currently incarcerated for exercising those rights.

If you commit a real crime while under the influence of drugs, you’re responsible for that crime.

If you commit a real crime using a firearm, you’re responsible for that crime.

But neither using drugs, nor possessing a firearm, the two in combination, are real crimes. They’re fake “crimes” manufactured by politicians. Ditto the “crime” of lying to those politicians by way of exercising your rights without their permission.

Biden should break out his pardon pen for his son — and for all the other prisoners of the US governments wars on drugs and guns.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On May 26, and into the early hours of May 27, in a foreshadowing of things to come, Libertarian National Convention delegates took seven rounds of voting to nominate Chase Oliver (who beat “None of the Above” after eliminating all other opponents) for president and two ballots to nominate Mike ter Maat for vice-president.

Three days later, Libertarian National Committee secretary Caryn Ann Harlos informed the committee of “a policy issue that is causing great upset.”

That issue: “Oliver has said he believes that giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to … minors is healthcare and simply up to parents and doctors. Others argue, and I agree, that it is child abuse …”

To her credit, Ms. Harlos makes clear that she doesn’t favor rescinding Mr. Chase’s nomination (which the committee can do with a 3/4 vote) over the matter.

That “policy issue” has, however, become a talking point for the Libertarian Party’s sore losers. At least one state party — Montana —  has already announced that it doesn’t intend to fulfill its obligation to place Mr. Oliver and Mr. ter Maat on its state ballot line.

I apologize for re-hashing inside third party baseball, and perhaps burying the lede. The matter is bigger than the Libertarian Party, but it’s just too good an example of the phenomenon I want to explore to pass up.

That phenomenon is not “puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors,” but rather the use of moral panic to move opinion.

You might be surprised to learn that of the 70 million minors living in the US, fewer than 20,000 received prescriptions for puberty blockers or hormone therapy in the five-year period covering 2017-2021.

That’s about three one-hundredths of one percent.

It’s not quite as rare as getting struck by lightning or death by drowning, but it’s in the same ballpark.

Absent demagoguery for the express purpose of creating moral panic, that’s not much of a “policy issue.”

But look where demagoguery for the express purpose of creating moral panic has brought us:

Even among self-described libertarians, Libertarian Party members, and LP officials, we find factions up in arms over the “issue” of parents/guardians (with the assistance of doctors), rather than politicians, making healthcare decisions for minor children.

It’s not just L/libertarians, of course. The entire modern political discourse seems pretty much driven by moral panic.

Drugs. Guns. Immigration. Gambling. Sex work.  Heck, even a non-existent “war on Christmas.” The list of handles politicians use to grab Americans and pull them from the common sense column to the  “SOMEONE might be doing SOMETHING I don’t LIKE — there should be a law!” column never ends.

When you’re handed a moral panic disguised as a “policy issue,” try thinking it through instead of hiding under your bed.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY