Libertarianism ≠ Anarchy

I had a friend who recently had the following Facebook status: "Libertarianism = Anarchy." Having recently self-identified as a libertarian, I find this misconception to be very interesting. Prior to this moment, I always thought that libertarianism meant being ammoral, indifferent to those around them, in short, a libertine "live and let live" attitude. As I outline below in this very brief primer of libertarian principles, I thought wrong.


Liberty. Ever since the Exodus in Egypt, we have yearned freedom--it's part of our human nature. Not only is it natural, but it also maximizes one's potential to succeed in this world. Without it, we become slaves in this world. Although we don't live in a Communist state, we're surely having our liberties eroded by a government that breeds dependency upon it. Maximizing one's freedom is the best way for everyone to amicably get along while pursuing their life's ambitions.

Non-agression. The principle of non-agression is the deontological ethical stance that states that the initiation of physical force is inherently illegitimate. This is key in libertarian thought because it is the very mechanism that assures the maximization of liberty. It holds many forms in all the monotheistic religions, and is accepted by all libertarians, as well as many political conservatives and traditionalists. The basis for this concept is the dignity of the individual and the importance of individualism.

Free markets. The right to property is essential to ensure liberty in the marketplace. A free market creates the incentive to do well. Incentive creates competition, which creates the most innovative product at the lowest price while maximizing the wealth, a win-win both for both customer and producer.

Limited Government. Thomas Paine called government a "necessary evil." I don't disagree with that statement. The reason is because, as a good friend of mine reminded me, "if we were all angels, there would be no need for government." This is what separates the libertarian from the anarchist. Anarchists want no government whatsoever, whereas the libertarian believes that the government should do the minimal amount to assure the maximization of liberty. Since we don't live in a world full of angels, a non-governmental would be bad because if everyone had absolute freedom, ultimately the person would gain total control, which, last time I checked, is called tyranny.

The more people respect the lives of others, the less need for government interventions. However, since we want to prevent tyranny, there are moments when government intervention is absolutely necessary. The purpose of government is to be used minimally, and when necessary, it is used to protect G-d-given rights, not tread on them. National defense comes to mind as one of the exceptions. So is the necessity of a police force to make sure nobody else is committing aggression towards another human being. But overall, the purpose of government is to ensure our G-d-given rights by protecting individuals to make sure they’re not violated. Because of this, there actually is a personal incentive for the individual to behave morally—less government. This moral incentive would bring us closer to a harmonious, free society, which is nothing like anarchy.