This is a question that libertarians themselves need to answer.  If you were asked, “What is a libertarian?”, how would you answer?

By libertarian, I am referring to a small “l” libertarian, as opposed to a large “L” libertarian, which would be a member of the Libertarian Party.

Of course, there are many people who call themselves libertarians who are not really libertarians.  It’s not that I or anybody else owns the definition of libertarian, but we can be certain that someone like Bill Weld is most certainly not one.  There are some who have libertarian leanings, but it would be hard to identify them as true libertarians.

If you want an interesting experiment, ask some of your friends or family to define what a libertarian is.  You may be surprised to hear some of the answers.  Some may struggle quite a bit giving you an answer.

The most common response you will hear is a list of some defining characteristics.  For example, you will get a list of things that libertarians are against: gun control, taxation, regulations, etc.

One answer you might get is that a libertarian is against government.  This is technically not correct without clarification. Libertarians, including anarchists, are not (or should not be) against all government.  We are against government in its current form – i.e. involuntary government.  There is nothing wrong with voluntary governing bodies, as long as people are free to associate or not to associate.  A principled libertarian is only against involuntary government, which is the state.  We use the term government because essentially all political entities that call themselves governments are involuntary in our current world.

When you ask the question of what a libertarian is, you could get the response that it is someone who advocates liberty.  This is a correct response.  The only problem is that it is so general as to almost be meaningless. Technically though, this really is the correct definition.  A libertarian is an advocate of liberty.

The problem here is that there are many people who will say they favor liberty, yet they are not libertarians.  When you dig deeper, they don’t really favor full liberty.  Then you get down to a proper definition of liberty. There are many people who advocate entitlement programs and an interventionist foreign policy who will say that favor liberty.

The Libertarian Party Pledge

The pledge to join the Libertarian Party (LP) is actually one of the best definitions of being a libertarian that I have seen.  It reads as follows:

“I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

This really gets to the heart of what it means to be a libertarian.  If you think deeply about that pledge, it was crafted carefully.

You may wonder why it doesn’t just say that you should never advocate the initiation of force. But I have an unusual example to answer this.

Let’s say one of my children called me up saying they were stuck in the middle of the desert. It is 100 degrees outside, and they are about to die of thirst before anyone can rescue them.  There is someone there in the middle of the desert who has 500 bottles of drinking water, but he refuses to give (or sell) one bottle to my child dying of thirst.  My child asks me what to do.  If my child can steal the other person’s property (one bottle of water), I say to do it.  It is an encroachment on the other person and his property.  In a sense, you could say that I am advocating the use of force (although not to actually physically harm the other person).

I think the qualifier “as a means of achieving political or social goals” is there for such a crazy example or others of similar nature.

If someone calls your wife ugly and you punch him in the face, I’m not sure that this disqualifies you from being a libertarian.  You shouldn’t have done it, and you will face the consequences of having done so, but it doesn’t mean you are advocating force for political or social change.

Aside from the nuances of the definition, I think it is important for libertarians to remember why they are libertarians.  It is easy to get sucked in to debates about cultural and other issues that really aren’t dealing with the initiation of force.

It is also important to use this as a defense or argument in favor of libertarianism.  It is easy to get wrapped up in debates over all of these details on issues.  But you can often silence, or at least confuse, someone by pointing out that he is advocating the use of violence to solve the problem that he seeks to solve.

Many people just simply don’t understand what it means to be a libertarian.  Libertarians can do a much better job or describing the political viewpoints of others.  Critics of libertarians will often make things up.  They will say such things as: libertarians don’t believe in helping people.  And if you don’t believe in government-funded education, then they will say you are against education, and so on.

Some people are being dishonest.  Some really just don’t understand libertarianism.  Sometimes it is a combination of those things.  They often don’t understand, but they don’t give any effort in trying to understand.

I was recently talking about property taxes.  My daughter asked about why we have to pay property taxes.  I said that we have to pay for the schools that she doesn’t use.  She asked what happens if I just don’t pay them.  I don’t know if I should have been this blunt, but I told her that they would fine me more money.  And if I still don’t pay, then they will put a lien on my property, and eventually, policemen may show up at the door to take me to jail or shoot me.

That is the hardcore fact that non-libertarians constantly try to avoid.  They never want to talk about the guys with guns who will show up at your door to enforce the policies they are advocating.  The men with guns will kidnap you and lock you up, and if you resist, they will kill you.  This is politics.

This is what people need to be reminded of (or taught) whenever a political discussion occurs.

Someone may have a wonderful government proposal that is intended to help a lot of people in need. But the question is whether I am free to disagree.  If I don’t go along with it, will men show up to shoot me?  That is the ultimate end of every government program. Most people obey so that the men with guns don’t show up.  But we should always be reminded that this is the ultimate end if we choose to disagree and disobey.