The notion of voluntarily interacting with one another, while may seem a reasonable and admirable wish, remains controversial in mainstream discourse. And this controversy is stronger in those who favor and advocate for government intervention. This correlation is unsurprising when you consider that the idea of government intervention is rooted in the belief that ordinary people are not to be trusted to interact among themselves freely.
The idea is that an omnipotent third party needs to be instituted for the benefit of everyone. The underlying premise is that everyone would exploit one another if they were not restrained with a leash. One primary example is the sacrosanct policy of minimum wage. This too, is rooted in distrust of ordinary men. It is a distrust of the employers to not pay reasonable wages, and it is a distrust to the agency of the employee to do what is best for themselves. This specific topic is one of great fascination and one I will speak to in more detail in the future.
This lack of trust in ordinary voluntary interaction is what leads to its vilification – spearheaded by both government themselves and those who place their trust in government above their fellow man. When a libertarian declares their defense of voluntary exchange and association, and denounces all forms of aggression, they are met with a commonly espoused array of counter-assertions. These opposing criticisms, however, are all rooted in a vilification of liberty detached from government hands.
Critics of voluntaryism often accuse the libertarian of defending pedophilia and other criminal activities, as well as advocating for racism and “hate speech”. Inherently, critics accuse the libertarian of being a pacifist that would allow any egregious act to go unpunished if it is in the name of “consent”. There is a little to unpack here, so I will address each of these accusations separately.
First and foremost, these critiques fail to acknowledge the non-aggression principle (NAP) that is imbedded in libertarian ideology. To reiterate, The NAP is fundamentally related to the notion that no one ought to have their right to life, liberty, and property violated. Many classical liberalist constitutions frame it as a right to “life, liberty, and security of the person”. It is the NAP that upholds this right at its purest and thus is inherently a defensive principle.
Libertarians uphold the freedom of each person to be able to defend themselves from all aggression. This includes “criminal activity” or in other words crimes that violate the liberty, property, and person of another. This would include pedophilia on the basis that the act involves an adult preying on a child who not only is unable to consent but is of the property of their guardians. So not only is the child being aggressed upon, but so are their parents.
Voluntaryism calls for more responsibility to be placed on each individual to not only protect themselves but to ensure their fellows around them are not subjected to violation. While they are not on any obligation to do so, many naturally would if not to secure their own safety. Instead of living a passive life where you let the government meddle with every criminal action that occurs, the libertarian voluntarily assumes more responsibility to ensure his own safety and that of his family and local community.
While life will never be perfect, a community that respects voluntary action and upholds the NAP will be far freer and safer than the ones who live blindly as they defer all responsibility of deterring evil to government bureaucrats. This is especially case considering it is the latter who so often perpetuate the “evil”.
Voluntary association entails that people have the freedom to associate with whoever they want. This means that the libertarian defends the right of individuals to interact with those they desire even if that line of preference is racial. A defense of something, however, does not equate to its advocacy. A libertarian can be staunchly against discrimination but acknowledge the right of an individual, for example, to solely interact with tall people or individuals with darker skin.
In respect to hate speech, if the act does not violate or harm the liberty, property, and life of the individual then the libertarian acknowledges its right to exist unabetted by government intervention. Again, this does not mean the libertarian's advocates for it personally. A crime that does not violate the NAP is by definition a “victimless crime” and these sorts of acts are not recognized as crimes by the libertarian.
There is much more to be said here and much more I plan to flesh out and share my commentary on. With that said, hopefully you have gotten to better understand the libertarian spirit as it pertains to voluntary association and interaction, predicated on the non-aggression principle. In essence, everything that does not violate the life, liberty, and property of the person is permitted even if it may not be advocated for. And this freedom scares those on both aisles of the spectrum who wish to enforce “acceptable behavior” on others. In the next part of this series, I will move on to the final libertarian pillar to be discussed: private property and self-ownership.
Thanks for this once again. Many fail to understand that the non Aggression principle is NOT the gun-free zone of libertarianism. It's not something we chant when violations of life, liberty and property happens and hope it goes away like some kind of magic spell from Harry Potter. It's a philosophical framework that makes it clear when and when its not ok to use aggression or force on another person.