Libertarianism 2.0

The libertarian movement is at a crossroads: with the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign drying up and the pro-liberty Congressman Justin Amash facing a risky redistricting, dark days seem to be at hand. Often, the electorate is forced to choose between the moral crusaders intent on spending America into oblivion, and social engineers hell-bent on putting even more onto the national credit card. To add injury to insult, the national “echo” of our two parties is made worse by reckless foreign policy adventurism, ranging from dubious drone strikes, the “humanitarian war” oxymoron, and rebel-funding schemes. Is this the gradual slipping of the United States toward mindless and heartless authoritarianism? Well, heres the rub- whatever the case may be, doomsday proselytizing needs to be balanced with a sunny, compelling case that libertarianism can pave the way for a new wave of prosperity and happiness.

The problem was never the end solution, though, it is the road we must take to get to our ideal society. Libertarianism 1.0, as I would call it, suffers from a multitude of problems that need addressing if we are to become a force to be reckoned with. For starters, we need to figure out how far we are willing to take the “states rights” issue. Libertarians are often put in an awkward position when states decide to implement draconian economic controls or medieval social restrictions. Take Lawrence vs. Texas, for instance- after the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’s sodomy ban was an invasion of a right to privacy, Ron Paul penned an article lambasting the Court for imposing “its vision on the people of Texas.” Don’t get me wrong- a loose reading of the Constitution often goes hand in hand with the destruction of civil liberties and increase of state power. In this case, however, the state of Texas was imposing their narrow conception of morality on two consenting adults in the seclusion of their own residence. In this clear-cut instance of individual sovereignty versus state power, shouldn’t libertarians celebrate the triumph of the individual?

The issue of abortion similarly puts libertarians in a very tough spot. In addition to the questionable “states-rights” position taken by many of us, there’s been plenty of intellectual blood spilled in the debate over rights violations. Is the insertion of government hands into a woman’s uterus an overreach, or is it a necessary intervention to protect a right? Leaving this unrelenting tug-of-war to the states does not seem to accomplish anything, since a mother can still “kill her baby” if she so wishes, by crossing state lines. The “states-rights” line is also anathema to the pro-choice crowd, since government infringements on reproductive freedom would be commonplace. While the fetus may have a right to live, its inherent, bodily dependence on others should strike libertarians as unjust. At the same time, though, destroying a life for inadvertently depending on another’s body comes across as an inhumane position, feeding into the image of “die in the street” libertarianism. 

Voluntary compassion, combined with the technological innovation of capitalism, may provide a powerful, unique solution to this dilemma. Fetal adoption, which involves cryogenically freezing the fetus and placing it in the womb of a wanting mother, is rapidly growing more successful and less costly. While the violation of a woman’s bodily sovereignty should be condemned at any level of government, unleashing helping hands and free-market innovations could provide powerful solutions to our age-old problems. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of Libertarianism 2.0, and this revolutionary proposition needn’t be limited to vexing social questions.

Combatting the welfare state needs to be combined with a truly compassionate alternative- a comprehensive network of fraternal organizations, cooperatives, and charities for the ailing and underprivileged. We must also reach out to groups that are in the progressive sphere of influence, including single women, African-Americans, and Latino-Americans. By discussing how prescription mandates and employer-provided insurance act as barriers to birth control access, we can prove that libertarianism is also friendly to female voters. Libertarianism 2.0 should point to bloated welfare systems and overrun prisons to demonstrate the plight of inner-city minorities, and propose a compelling alternative of fraternal societies and greater competition in education and health-care. 

Instead of the outright elimination of Social Security or the short-term “shoring-up” of the program suggested by Ron Paul, the program should be infused with competition over the short-run. While the public is often put-off by phrases such as “elimination” or “privatization,” a politically-savvy and pragmatic libertarianism would diversify Social Security into a number of different retirement plans. The public, faced with a multitude of benefit schemes and retirement ages, will finally warm-up to the logic of competition and free-markets. 

While many push for purity and strict- constitutionalism in the libertarian movement, we must readjust our program of reform to reflect the current reality of politics. Even though I’m in love with the libertarian cause, I often witness conversations grounded in an ideal utopia, sans any real-world-application. By gradually selling a compassionate, compelling brand of libertarianism to citizens of all persuasions, we can crawl out of our narrow ideological niche and unleash the floodgates of prosperity, peace, and sound money.