I consider myself to be a radical libertarian.  Sometimes the word “radical” is seen as bad, but that depends on what you are being radical about.

If your child were kidnapped, would you “radically” demand a return of your child?  Or would you take a more “moderate” approach and request that you be able to see your child part of the time with certain restrictions applied?

The same goes with radical libertarianism.  I won’t apologize for being a radical.  I am radical in my philosophy of non-aggression.  I am radical in that I want peace and prosperity.  I am not demanding just somepeace and someprosperity.  While I may cheer some moves in the right direction, it doesn’t mean I accept that as the final result.  I will continue to promote all peace all the time, even if I know that won’t happen today and maybe never.

If you accept a certain level of authoritarianism, then don’t be surprised if you get it. This has been made especially clear in 2020.

The only way to beat back the lockdowns, restrictions, and other tyrannical measures that have come in 2020 is through radicalism.  I don’t mean radicalism necessarily in terms of taking action.  I mean radicalism with regard to what we are willing to accept.

We don’t need a large portion of the population to turn into radical libertarians in order to reverse all of the lockdown measures of 2020.  But we do need a large portion of the population to become radically libertarian on this one issue.

Let me give an example of how being a moderate can really hurt the cause.  A week or two ago, I was watching a California restaurant owner being interviewed on Fox News.  At that time, it had recently been announced that outdoor dining would no longer be allowed in many parts of California.

The restaurant owner stated that he understood why indoor dining had not been allowed.  But, he said, he had made accommodations for outdoor dining and he was following the protocols put in place by the governor. He said it wasn’t fair to ban outdoor dining and that his business was at risk of failing with the new shutdown.

I have heard similar stories from other restaurant owners.  I hear statistics about how very few coronavirus cases have been traced to restaurant dining.  I hear about how other businesses are not treated the same, or how an outdoor dining tent was allowed for another group of people.

I’m sorry, but this misses the point.  While I feel empathy towards these business owners, I also get really irritated with some of them.  I was particularly irritated when this one restaurant owner said he understood and accepted why indoor dining should be closed (by the state).

This business owner was signing his own death certificate.  He was making an argument in favor of the state’s lockdown powers, and I don’t even think he understood what he was doing.

This is the problem with too many people.  They try to compromise.  They try to be a “moderate”.  They try to sound “reasonable”.  That is what this guy was doing.  He was trying to sound reasonable.  But in the process, he was conceding the worst aspects of the whole thing. He was saying it is ok for the governor to control his business, as long as the measures put in place are reasonable.  But I’m sure the governor always can come up with a reason that is logical in his own mind.

The guy should have said that he owns the restaurant and that it is his property.  As the property owner, he should have the right to do as he pleases with it, whether that includes outdoor dining, indoor dining, or anything else.

I have talked about the issues of discrimination and voluntary association before.  I was a big critic of the state telling a baker that he had to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding.  It had nothing to do with being for or against gay people.  It had everything to do with property rights.

I have also said that a property owner should be able to discriminate on any basis.  This includes race, sex, religion, age, or anything else.  There should be no interference from the state.  It’s not to say that there might not be consequences from customers, but the law itself should not prohibit discrimination.

The reason is because of property rights.  It is the property owner’s right to use his property as he pleases, so long as he is not using aggression against others.

This is really the only defense against the lockdowns.  It is a violation of property rights and voluntary association.  If someone is fearful of the virus, they don’t have to go to a restaurant.  If a restaurant owner wants to close all dining, that is his business. If he wants to be completely open, that is his business.  It is up to customers on whether they want to go there.

I think statistics can be useful.  They can be useful in persuading others that the virus is not nearly as serious as they have been led to believe.  They can be used to show that lockdown countries or lockdown states are not necessarily any better off in terms of lower coronavirus cases or deaths.

But even here, they should be secondary arguments.  The primary argument should be one of liberty, which includes property rights.

When a restaurant owner argues that the coronavirus hasn’t been traced much to outdoor dining, then he is conceding his own property rights.  Because the implication is that if tracing did show outdoor dining to be a problem, then it would be ok for the governor or other state officials to shut down outdoor dining.

This is why many libertarians have been frustrating to listen to in 2020.  It is why the Libertarian Party presidential campaign was so ineffective.  They should have been making a clear case for property rights in the face of lockdowns, even if it is more of a state issue than a federal one.  It was the federal government recommending the lockdowns in the first place.  While there may have been some mild criticisms here and there of the lockdowns, they were weak and seemed almost secondary.

There are hundreds of thousands of businesses in the United States alone that have been shut down this year.  They need a voice. They need an example.  These business owners should all be libertarians by now.  They should be against government licensing now more than ever.  They should be against any state interference in business in any way so long as there is no aggression.

This is the moment libertarians have been waiting for.  People need a voice.  We have the right message that will resonate with people.  It does not lie in “moderation”.  We need radicalism more than ever.  We need a radical defense of liberty.  We need a radical defense of private property rights.  No business should be locked down for any reason ever so long as that business is not aggressing against anyone else.  This message needs to be repeated over and over again.  Even the business owners themselves need to hear it.