The Problem With Libertarianism
There are certain things about Rep. Paul that are very appealing to me. His intellectual consistency and the way he embraces the conclusions of his philosophy no matter the political consequences of that consistency is the most attractive aspect of his candidacy. However when the underlying philosophy has problems, then so does the candidate. And libertarianism has problems.
An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call “local bullies.”
The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society – the government (the “big bully”) and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.
In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want (or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city.
We should always be careful about government intruding in our lives like telling us who we can marry and detaining people without a warrant. But we also need government. A capitalist economy can’t function without it and neither can a just society.