Libertarianism and Social Justice

As libertarianism gets more and more awareness, the challenge becomes how to navigate upholding libertarian principles, pragmatism, and resisting the urge to turn the ideology into a taxation obsessed club of: 'I got mine, fuck you.' Ron Paul has done a lot to bring people to libertarianism, but since his focus has mainly been on Economics and Foreign Policy, a lot of the newbies he's brought in think that taxation, gay Nazi cakes, and isolationism are literally all libertarianism is about. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Libertarianism isn't a selfish ideology, though that is usually the most often used accusation against us. Bad marketing, as well as a member group who are unclear about the wide breadth of libertarian issues have led outsiders to see us as mostly white men screeching 'TAXATION IS THEFT!' and 'COLLECTIVISM IS CANCER!' into the void while accusing anyone who questions their myopic worldview as a 'collectivist' or, worse, an SJW (GASP!). The very audacity of you to extend the concept of individual liberty to those outside the white male caucus!

So, I'd like to clear the air of any confusion about Libertarianism and Social Justice. In my opinion, not only are they compatible but key components of libertarianism REQUIRE social justice. We are not simply dropped on this earth as equals working within a meritocracy for our wealth, labor, etc. We are born into a very unequal society, and some of that inequality cannot be helped - like economic inequality. But some of it can - like racial, gender, sex, orientation, religion, etc. And libertarians should be striving for a marketplace where all participants are treated equally - at the very least.

Let's look at some generally agreed upon components of libertarianism individually:

Individualism and Individual Rights:
Individuals are the most vulnerable minority and individuals are responsible for their own actions. Collectivism holds individuals responsible for actions of other people in their identity group and this is inherently unjust.

Many paleolibertarians think this means that we need to ignore all conversations about racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. If we were to address these inequities we are engaging in collectivism. That is, of course, utter nonsense. Individualism is a key component to libertarianism but we are not currently being seen as or treated as individuals. Therefore, to uphold individualism we need to actively fight collectivists policies that disproportionately hurt marginalized people.

So, BLM, Gay Pride, feminism, etc are all a part of individualism in that the ultimate goal of all of these movements is for the members of these groups to stop being seen as a collective of negative attributes and to be seen as individuals with no negative connotations attributed to them based on their identity group.

The fact that police disproportionately patrol black neighborhoods, escalate situations with black suspects, are more likely to fear for their lives while interacting with black citizens are all examples of collectivism. By not actively fighting these things, you are supporting collectivism.

The fact that black kids are more likely to be arrested or punished for bad behavior at school, that black people - regardless of economic status - receive harsher penalties for the same crimes, and that people of color still face regular discrimination in hiring practices are examples of collectivism. Libertarians should be fighting to end these things if we really believe in individualism.

Anywhere that we can see discrimination, oppression, subjugation happening either publically or privately on a systemic scale, collectivism is at work. And as Individualists, it is a libertarians responsibility to oppose that sort of collectivism. It isn't any more collectivist to FIGHT social collectivism than it is pro-fire to put out a house fire. The fact remains that collectivism is how the world operates. In order to move to Individualism, we need to rid our society of the collectivist thinking that hands white people privileges and sticks minorities with disadvantages they didn't earn.

Free Markets:
The fact that a baker, or gas station owner, or grocer, or whoever CAN discriminate against people of color, or women, or Muslims, or...take your pick doesn't mean that he should. Being for free markets doesn't mean you don't have an opinion about how people act within that market. If a member of the selling group is refusing service to a buying group, calling that out as wrong isn't anti-libertarian. It's an extension of the first tenant of individualism. That is, no one should be denied service based on COLLECTIVIST thinking, like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Moreover, there is a bigger question at play here. Locke and Nozick (both libertarian or classical liberal philosophers) agree that entitlement theory allows all fairly acquired property and wealth to be transferred to another (often in death). This is a libertarian principle that cannot be denied, but the question is about whether the original property was fairly acquired, and for that, the question becomes more complicated.

In a country that has seen its rise off the backs of people of color, can we ever be sure white property has been fairly acquired? This is much more difficult knot to untangle. We know slaves contributed massive amounts of wealth to white landowners and never saw returns on that labor. We know they went on to be subjected to racial intolerance, Jim Crow, poor schools, indentured servitude, ghettoization, drug wars, all of which not only thwarted their ability to get ahead or earn capital but also stole their labor with little to no compensation. If that is the case, then how can we determine the wealth generated from this injustice and spread through the hands of white people has been fairly acquired? Even if you do not agree, you have to admit that question is one that is necessary to ask if we are going to pretend our market is at all free under the terms of fair acquirement.

Non-Aggression Principle:
As libertarians, we oppose the initiation of force to achieve our goals. We do not believe in 'strike first' nor do we believe that anyone, including the government, has the right to use aggression or force against an individual or their property outside of defense.

This is another place paleolibertarians go off the rails. Law and Order, 'muh borders' obsession comes

from a place of aggression. Despite what you think, most people are not in prison for violent crimes. In fact, some people sitting in cages have not even been convicted of crimes. Criminal justice reform and the breakdown of the Prison Industrial Complex are VITAL to libertarianism because our current system is slavery by another name. We incarcerate people for victimless crimes, hold them on bail without convictions, and subject them to labor for which they are paid nearly nothing.

At the border, the problem is growing. It is no less than an egregious NAP violation to not only hinder people from free movement across political borders but to prosecute them, cage them, and kidnap their children. These people are seeking to escape harsh, potentially fatal conditions and forcibly halting them from doing so and/or returning them to those conditions is an act of aggression for which there is no defense, from a libertarian perspective. Entering a political border is not, itself, a threat of violence so there are no grounds under NAP to do what we do to undocumented immigrants.

I could truly go on and on about all the ways in which libertarianism and social justice intersect, but let me address what I'm sure is the most common critique of social justice. It is a misconception that everyone fighting for social justice wants to ban 'hate speech,' or write quota laws, or socially engineer from the government down. Social Justice doesn't even have to be facilitated by the government - outside of the parts where we are asking the government to not victimize the population (which, btw, all libertarians should agree with). Social Justice starts with you. It starts at home. It starts with educating yourself about the injustice around you and choosing not to contribute to it. Then, choosing to do something about it - to protest, to boycott, to contribute to organizations actively fighting the injustice. None of these things require the government if that is your concern. But too often those opposed to social justice merely want to hide their heads in the sand about systemic injustice and blather on about 'collectivism is cancer' while actively enabling collectivism in its worst form.

Libertarianism not only goes hand in hand with Social Justice, I'd argue they are inextricably linked.