The Amoral Nature of Libertarian Politics

There is something very seductive about the Libertarian political ideal. It presents a system in which no one has to do anything that they don't want to do. Taxes are minimal, if they exist at all, and you don't have government always getting involved in your personal life. Drugs and prostitution would be legal, foreign wars and "police actions" would disappear, and everyone could just live their lives without undue interference.

Sounds lovely. But it is a total farce. There is nothing real about this utopian image, either in terms of the practical realities involved nor in terms of the moral rectitude that it tries to convey.

Let me state that again, more bluntly: There is nothing moral about Libertarian policies. In fact, Libertarianism is decidedly amoral.

Most people recognize that government just works better than private enterprise when it comes to certain things such as firefighting, police, education, national defense, and a whole host of other government-funded services that Libertarians would prefer to turn over to the private sector. Pragmatically speaking, Libertarianism just doesn't work, and has never worked, so there is no reason to believe that it ever will work. But that is a practical argument. My argument is that even if it could be done, implementing Libertarianism would give us as many moral problems as we face now, if not more.

The central Libertarian moral argument is that nothing should be illegal if it doesn't hurt anyone else, and no one should be compelled to do anything that they do not want to do. While I tend to agree with the former, the latter smacks of a disaffected teenager who feels too adult to be told what to do, but isn't adult enough to do those things anyway because that is what adults do -- without being told.

Here is the crux of my argument: Imagine you are walking along, minding your own business, and you notice that someone is in a locked cage and they cannot get out without help. Libertarianism would tell you that you are under no obligation to let the person out of the cage. You didn't put them there, so it isn't your responsibility to let them out. Of course, you could let them out, and a nice person would let them out, but you are under no obligation to be nice. You have a right to be an asshole, and compelling you to let that person out of the cage is no less an affront to your human dignity than it is for that person to be in a cage to begin with, and two wrongs do not make a right.

There is a certain appeal to this sort of argument, and it is a good one on many levels. However, as a society do we really think that one person's right to be an asshole is on the same level as another person's right to be free? If the only way to get that person out of the cage is to compel you to open the door, then I feel bad for your hurt dignity, but I will barely notice those feelings -- what with being overjoyed by the fact that an enslaved human has been set free.

Okay, so maybe that's just me. I can see how someone might not agree, that it is always wrong to compel someone to do something that he doesn't want to do. So let's make our analogy resemble life a bit more fully: Now, in addition to seeing a cage with a stranger inside of it, you also notice an electronic sign on the cage that shows you exactly how much money is being deposited into your bank account every day that this person is locked up. This may be news to you -- The "magical" appearance of that money was such an integral part of your reality that you never really noticed it, in the same way that we tend not to notice the oxygen that we breath every moment of the day. Okay, so you didn't know the true origin of all that money before, but now that you know the truth, would it still be morally acceptable to allow the person to remain imprisoned while you profit from their incarceration?

At this point, most people will acknowledge that a good moral compass would compel you to let the person out of the cage. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be enough to get any but the biggest assholes out there to let the poor man out of the cage. It's the only right thing to do. If someone tries to tell you that the only reason they didn't open the door is because they are not obligated to do so, they are only fooling themselves. The fact that they benefit from the man's continued incarceration is not just a happy (for them) coincidence; it is what makes the right to be an asshole so appealing in the first place.

In the real world, the analogy of the cage represents the institutional advantages that some people have that others do not. As a white, English-speaking, middle class, American, straight male, I pretty much have all of those advantages locked up, and I was quite precocious in this regard --  I had most of them under my belt before I even left the uterus! It would have been easy for me to miss just how good I have it, because I've never known anything else. People just let me do what I want to do most of the time, and if they don't, there is usually some reason for it that has nothing to do with the fact that I am white, English-speaking, middle class, American, straight, or male. This is the only reality I have personally known.

However, many of my friends of color have had a very different experience of life. Many of the doors that were wide open for me were at least partially closed to them, if not completely nailed shut. My life has not been easy, but how much harder would it have been if I had to expend extra effort just to overcome the obstacles presented by having a darker complexion, or "inside parts" instead of "outside parts"?

Although it took some work, at this point in my life I feel no guilt for having advantages that others do not. I did not give myself these advantages, that's just the nature of the playing field I was born into. I can only have real guilt or regret for the choices I have personally made, not those made by others long before I was born.

At the same time, however, the fact that I did not give myself these advantages does not give me free rein to abuse those advantages, or even to accept them without some consideration of the responsibilities that come with them. If I have advantages that I never had to work for, and others have disadvantages that they never did anything to deserve, then there is an imbalance. An amoral person wouldn't care, as long as he was on the winning side of that equation. But a moral person does care. A moral person wants everyone to have all the same great opportunities that he has had in life. A moral person does not turn a blind eye to the injustices served to his fellow human beings, no matter how far removed he is from the decisions that caused such injustices.

This is why Libertarianism is amoral -- it rails against any legislation that would address these institutional iniquities through programs such as welfare, affirmative action, social services, Pell grants, or any other publicly funded program designed to help the disadvantaged. For them, this is an involuntary confiscation of the money that they earned, and no positive use of that money can offset the fact that they were "robbed" of it in the first place.

What this worldview fails to consider is this: How much of that money were they able to earn thanks to the institutional power structures that favored them over others? This is an impossible question to answer in detail, but it still needs to be asked, because that's how we stay honest with ourselves. And if we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that some effort must be put into neutralizing institutional advantages that lift some up by putting other people down. Until these iniquities no longer exist, and no longer present a danger of returning, Libertarian philosophies are -- in effect, if not intent -- little more than a smoke screen to protect the advantages of those already at the top. And there is nothing moral about that.

Mitt Romney: A Modern-Day Slave Owner

When I was a child, one of the first things I learned about American history is that we used to allow some people own other people. It was called "slavery," and it was abolished in the 19th century -- first by President Lincoln via the Emancipation Proclamation, and then more comprehensively through the 13th Amendment to our Constitution. From that time forth, any ownership of one person by another was illegal.

Except there is a loophole. What? A "loophole" in the ban against slavery, you ask? Yes, one large enough to drive a cotton gin through! It is enshrined in our Constitution, in the very Amendment that supposedly outlawed slavery. Here is the text of the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Did you catch the exception to the no-slavery rule? Slavery "shall exist" as a punishment for crime, as long as the person in question has been "duly convicted."

What does this have to do with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney? Well, we have a curious relationship between prisons and private corporations in America. Increasingly, states are turning their prisons over to private companies, who not only profit from the contracts themselves, but also profit from the forced labor of the prisoners they house (never mind the exorbitant rates they charge for a phone call to a loved one). So it's a good investment. And who do you think might have invested in such a grand scheme? That's right -- Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

"On August 26, 1998, BCPF [a Romney-owned company] acquired 5.21 percent of [Corrections Corporation of America] Realty Investors... By December 31, 1998, BCPF owned 7.13 percent of CCA Realty Investors" (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/mitt-romneys-undisclosed-relationship-priva)

Once you peel back the layers of legal documents and shell companies, you have an entirely legal framework (the 13th Amendment) in which a person (Mitt Romney) can own other people (mostly dark-skinned), and profit from that ownership for the duration of their criminal sentence. Throw in the fact that our criminal code and the enforcement of our laws are skewed heavily against African-Americans and other minorities ("Black males have a 32% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives; Hispanic males have a 17% chance; white males have a 6% chance" ~Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008), and you have a perfectly legal back door to modern day slavery.

To be fair, Candidate Romney did not own shares in CCA Realty Investors for very long. Filings show that all shares in CCA were sold sometime between January 8 and June 30, 1999 -- so less than a year in total. He wasn't looking to own people, he just didn't mind doing so for a time in pursuit of a quick buck.

Aside from the questions this raises about our legal code and how it is used to enslave and disenfranchise minorities and the poor, this adds a whole new wrinkle to the Presidential race, because according to Ancestry.com President Obama is most likely a descendent of an African-American slave -- not through his father, who was a Kenyan citizen, but through his (mostly) White mother.

In 2012, 147 years after slavery was officially "banned" in the United States, we have a Presidential election between a White former slave-owner, and dark-skinned, bi-racial, direct descendent of African-American slaves. Will wonders never cease?

An Answer to Candidate Ron Paul's Stance on the Birth Control Mandate

On February 13th, Representative Ron Paul released a "Weekly Update" regarding the Obama administration's birth control mandate policy. While Rep. Paul does not speak for all conservatives, this "Update" does seem fairly indicative of the religious conservative position. My response follows at the end:

Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.

Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.

Here is my response:

1) "Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars."

This is absolutely true, but that is the cost of living in a society with diverse beliefs, viewpoints, and priorities. I, for one, have a moral objection to the fact that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Roughly half of my income taxes go toward defense spending, and I object to that. I am also not the only one. But I accept the fact that I only get one vote, and sometimes I am going to be over-ruled. What religious employers will have to pay for their employees to get birth control is a tiny fraction of the money spent on the military, so I really don't feel bad for those who feel like their religious beliefs are being violated by this mandate. Refund me all the money I've lost to the cause of pointless wars, and then maybe we can talk.


2) "Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?"

No, we don't. That's because progressives and labor unions fought long and hard to force employers to pay a living wage to all of their employees. If an employer didn't pay their employees at least the minimum wage (which badly needs updating!), they would be subject to fines and civil litigation. The cost of basic healthcare is also supposed to be included in a "living wage," but over the years healthcare has become too expensive for many workers, and access to birth control is a vital component of one's health. The birth control mandate addresses this deficiency.


3) "In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion."

This is so false and inflammatory that it barely dignifies a response, but a response is needed nonetheless. First of all, with greater access to birth control comes a reduction in the number of abortions, so if there were an "abortion industry" special interest, it would be fighting against greater access to birth control, not supporting it. If everyone who didn't want children actually used birth control properly, the "abortion industry" would lose countless paying customers. As such, those who truly object to abortions should applaud an administration that champions this mandate.

Second, I cannot think of a single public figure or personal friend who actually hates traditional religious values; what they object to is the tendency of zealous religious conservatives to try to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. When I say, "You can't tell me what to do with my body," I am not saying, "I hate your values," I am saying, "You can't tell me what to do with my body." If you don't like that, tough. Because you can't tell me what to do with my body. It's in the Constitution. Religious liberals really, truly, absolutely do not care what you do with your religious values, as long as you recognize where your values' influence should end and where ours should begin. As such, I draw a bright red line around the healthcare choices that affect me, not you. If your morals are offended, I am truly sorry, but on balance I think it would be better for the government to offend your morals than for the government to give employers the ability to come between women and their doctors when it comes to their healthcare decisions, because you can get over being offended but an unwanted child cannot "get over" being born.


4) "Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right."

Again, no political figure "hates" traditional values, they just don't think such values should be imposed on those who don't share them. This includes the employees of religiously owned institutions. Why doesn't Rep. Paul care about the religious beliefs of those who are most affected by these policies, including the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control? Sometimes a policy question comes up, and there is no way to make everyone happy. Exempting churches but not their secular affiliates is an appropriate way to balance all the conflicting values and priorities - not a way to express hatred of traditional values. If Obama truly hated traditional values, he could have tried to include churches in the mandate, but he didn't. He tried to find the "line of best fit," but religious conservatives don't want a compromise, they want victory.

And by the by, although no one is promoting single-parent households (another canard promoted by the Right), single parents are noble - in countless cases, they are raising a child by themselves with little to no support while the other person who created the child has abandoned his or her responsibilities. Also, responsible birth control should be encouraged as soon as someone becomes sexually active, and since we cannot control every moment of a hormone-addled teenager's life, it is far better to teach them responsible sexual expression than it is to pretend that we can control their behavior. Just ask Sarah Palin about her experience in this area. And while abortion may or may not be an absolute moral right, it is an absolute, Constitutionally-guaranteed legal right, as interpreted by the Constitutionally-empowered Supreme Court for several decades now.


5) "But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith."

They can also choose to obey the law. I'm sure it would be nice to live in a world where only one set of values exists, but we don't live in that world. If they would rather stop healing the sick or teaching our youth than to live in a morally ambiguous world, that is their choice, but they can only retreat from our increasingly interdependent world for so long before they will eventually have to confront the fact that not everyone is going to conform to their ideas about how life "should be." And given that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control, I'm not sure how this mandate is their most pressing existential challenge.


6) "The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes."

Again, it would be nice if we lived in a world where the government never had to take sides in a debate between its heterogeneous populations, but we do not live in that world. Again, I point to the fact that my conscience and my spiritual/religious beliefs are being violated every time the federal government allocates obscene amounts of money to the military.

Finally, you may not like the fact that the benefits of widely available birth control are a part of this debate (benefits that include a reduction in the overall number of abortions, so why is this even an problem for the religious Right?), but that doesn't mean that you can unilaterally declare that this is not the issue or shouldn't be a part of the discussion. You have your reasons for your position on the matter, and we have our reasons for our side of it. Telling me that my reasons are invalid will get you no further in this debate than I would get if I told you that your religious convictions are "not the issue."