Libertarianism and the Dilemma of Bigotry

If you want to destroy the movement toward greater human liberty, there is no better method than to poison it. And the poison I refer to is bigotry. Now, bigotry takes many forms. Some people only hate gays. Others only hate Jews, immigrants, women, or black people. But, in my experience bigotry, like other forms of human ignorance, tends to come in clusters. Someone who tends toward bigoted thinking toward one group, tends to hold similar positions toward other groups.

What Ayn Rand said about racism applies to all forms of bigotry. She said racism means, “that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions.” She said it “negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.” She called it the “lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.”

All bigotry, regardless of the objects of its hatred, treats the individual based on some collective trait, not their individuality. It denies the groups so targeted the same rights that are granted to others. It singles them out as somehow, inferior based on who they are, not on what they’ve done, or more particularly, not on what they’ve done to others.

That last part is important. Libertarianism holds that individuals are free to make their own choices and act provided they do not violate the equal rights of others.  This is what Herbert Spencer called the “liberty of each, limited by the like liberty of all.” This, he said, was the primary rule on “which society must be organized.”  Practicing Jews act Jewish. Judaism is not just a set of beliefs, but of actions centered around this faith and culture. But, acting Jewish does not inherently violate the equal rights of others. It doesn’t infringe on the life, liberty or property of other people.

Similarly, being black, or Mexican, or gay, does not violate the “like liberty of all.” There is nothing inherent in any of these collective identities that violates the rights of others. As such, none of these groups should be treated unequally before the law.

Another “collective” group we can speak of is criminals. That is a different matter, especially when we are properly defining crimes. Lysander Spooner defined crime as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.” Thomas Jefferson said something very similar to all these voices: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of law’ because law is often by the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Criminals are those individuals who violate the life, liberty or property of others. These actions do allow us to treat them differently than we do others, in regards to their liberty and their rights. It is right and proper that a rapist be denied the same freedoms of others.

But denying equal access to rights on the basis of non-criminal collective identities: such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is a very different matter. This is not upholding rights, but denying them.

 One of the great attributes of the libertarian tradition, historically known as the classical liberal tradition, is that he was always bucking the status quo when that state of affairs was the enemy of equal, individual liberty and rights.  Classical liberals were in the forefront of abolitionism—the movement to end slavery. They supported civil rights and the woman’s movement. They championed equality of rights for the poor, in nations where social status often determined the amount of liberty one had.

Certainly classical liberals, while in the forefront of such crusades for expanding human rights, were often prisoner of their own culture. During the early abolitionist movement you would find classical liberals on the wrong side of the debate, or conflicted by it. But, that this was the case in the early years any justification for such culture bound “traditional values” becomes increasingly unacceptable as time goes by. The tacit acceptance of slavery that was rampant in 1770 had long lost acceptability by 1860 and any purported “classical liberal” who would defend it today has lost the plot, and the right to call himself a classical liberal, or a libertarian.

As the moral consensus moves toward more equality of rights and freedom, the classical liberal who lags behind the culture is no longer a liberal, but a conservative clinging mindlessly to past prejudices.

Classical liberals fought to extend rights to Jews when “Christian traditionalists” were denying them their rights. Yes, the first steps were cautious ones, such as the abolition of the ghetto, or extending the right hold public office. But the classical liberal was pushing the culture in the right direction—toward greater respect of individual rights. If one were to advocate returning to ONLY those cautious first steps, that is not libertarianism, it is tyranny. Just because classical liberals of the past once held a position does not mean that it was the end of liberalism. The question was always: “In what direction do these policies lead us?”

If, at any time, the individual is pushing toward less individual rights, it is not libertarianism. This is true even if the position they currently take would have been considered radically liberal a century ago. Just because some opponents of slavery opposed interracial marriages doesn’t mean support for such laws can be considered “liberal” today. Any one who is pushing for less liberty, and for inequality of rights, in the culture in which he lives, is not a classical liberal, but a conservative. He is, in fact, an enemy of expanding human freedom and rights.

The bulk of the American people no longer hold these collectivistic views of people. They support the principles of individual rights and equality of rights before the law.  This hasn’t always been the case, but to a large degree it now is. Even on the issue of equality of rights for gay people the majority of the population is taking a position that 50 years ago would have been considered extreme and radical. It is really a minority who wish to deny rights based on sexual orientation.

Our culture has moved and it moved in the direction that was laid out by the Founding Fathers—toward greater respect for individual rights and toward equality of rights before the law. This is not to say that there are not trend in laws against individual rights. Such trends exist. But they tend to be the kinds of violations that impact all of us badly, instead of targeting one group over others. We are all less free because of the TSA, for instance. Such laws must be opposed, but we can still be optimistic that most Americans no longer want to disadvantage people because they are black, Jewish, gay, etc.

The position of libertarians on individual rights is clear. Not so clear, however, is what libertarians should do about bigots in their midst. And there are bigots who dress in libertarian drag and parade themselves before the public as libertarians.

There are people who argued that blacks are an “inferior race.” There are anti-Semites convinced the Jews are out to control the world. There are people who spit and sputter vile comments about gays when given half a chance. What should we do about them?

Some libertarians tend to argue that unless these people openly advocate gas chambers, lynching or “fag bashing,” then they should be welcomed. But, for instance, we have one “libertarian” theocrat that wrote homosexuals should be stoned to death in a free society because God’s law demands it. He even goes so far as to claim stoning doesn’t burden the taxpayers, fosters community spirit, and is actually “libertarian” because it wouldn’t be the state killing these sinners, but the good Christian people of the community. Another “libertarian” theorist, who hangs out with neo-Nazis and white supremacists wrote that in a free society homosexuals would have to “physically removed.” There is at least one local Libertarian Party official who actively supports racist organizations.

 Some libertarians will argue that one’s personal prejudices are immaterial unless the person is actually pushing for the violation of the rights of others. Yet, these same people turn blind eyes to the individuals just mentioned above, who clearly do recommend violating rights based on their own prejudicial viewpoints.

The problem with bigoted views is they inevitably lead to bigoted actions. How precisely can you argue that gay people are threats to the family, destructive of social order, etc., without actually having those views turn to actions at some point?

Bigotry today seems less toxic than it used to be because it constrained by the wider culture. When such constraints were absent—that is when those views were widely held—the actions taken were vastly different. That was a time when black people were lynched and gay people lobotomized or imprisoned.

Bigoted beliefs ultimately lead to bigoted actions, unless constrained by the wide culture, which means by the rule of law. When belief in witches was widespread the claim was that witches were malevolent individuals who harmed the greater society. When that belief dominated individuals believed to be witches were tried and executed. And the mob that did this believed they were acting in self-defense—something that almost sounds libertarian if you ignore the greater context. Today, “witches” are still routinely murdered by religious-inspired mobs in Africa; hundreds of such killings take place every year. The wider culture doesn’t restrain that belief and it is widespread enough that this happens.  

What bigots want is to the removal of the culture of restraint. They want to return to some past time when a majority of the people supported their kind of prejudicial views about a group. Libertarians should remember, however, what follows when this is the case. When there is widespread acceptance of bigoted views, widespread violations of individual rights follow.

This is not to say that bigots should be legally constrained from speaking. I am still convinced that the remedy to bad speech is good speech.  But the question is what should libertarians do with such people. Nothing! They should do nothing with them. They shouldn’t give them forums. They shouldn’t allow them to hold positions in libertarian organizations. They should frequent they websites, donate to their organizations or do anything to give them legitimacy.

Libertarians need to draw a line in the sand. If someone is a bigot they should not be welcomed in our circles. They are not legitimate representatives of the libertarian, or classical liberal tradition. They are, in fact, trying to push us backwards in a more conservative direction, not forwards.

And, we shouldn’t ignore that some of these people, who think themselves purists in libertarian circles, want a society that is both bigoted and one where individuals can pursue their bigotry with little, or no, restraint by the law. What they believe will happen in their “anarchist” paradise is that the prejudices they promote will dominate and blacks, Mexicans, gays, etc. will be driven out of the “tribe” or punished. This is precisely how one theologian argues that stoning gay people is really libertarian. There would be no state, the local Christian community will kill in the name of Jesus and that makes it “freedom.”

But the goal of libertarians is the protection of rights. Freedom is the means for protecting rights, but not always. We don’t allow rapists the freedom to attack women. We don’t allow the Klan the freedom to torch black churches. We don’t allow Nazis the right to push Jews into gas chambers. Freedom, in libertarian thinking, is that realm of action allowed when the rights of all people—even those you are bigoted toward—are respected. Many violations of freedom violate rights, but not all violations of freedom violate rights. Too many libertarians confuse the ends (rights protection) with the means (liberty). This is what all the great classical liberals quoted at the start meant by the “equal liberty” of others.

It is not a “libertarian” society that stones gay people to death, even if the state is virtually non-existent, or entirely missing. A libertarian society is measured by the respect of individual rights. Just because lynching in the old South were private affairs doesn’t mean they were consistent with libertarianism.

Individuals that advocate disparate legal treatment of individuals because of some collective, non-criminal trait simply should not be welcomed in libertarian circles.  We simply should not sanction their bigotry by giving them outlets for their views, or acceptance in our ranks.

We are, I fear, too willing to tolerate bigots because they are “good” on some other issue, or even on most issues. Being good on taxes is no justification for turning a blind eye to racism. Just because someone wants to “abolish the Fed,” doesn’t mean we should tolerate their demands that gay people be denied equality of rights. Someone with brilliant epistemology, who rails against the transgendered, should be ostracized. Anyone advocating intolerance and hatred for Muslim-Americans, not because they are radicals but because they are Muslim, should not be embraced even if they can expound the intricacies of Austrian economics better than anyone else in the world.

We need, as libertarians, to say that such collectivist, bigoted views are not welcome in our circles. We need to recognize where such views lead and the end results that would come about if we managed to created the kind of free society we want, but one where the bulk of the populace were bigots. It would be a culture not dissimilar to rampant violations of rights that we saw in the Deep South. A libertarian society, to lead to the enjoyment of individual rights, is tied to specific cultural values and bigotry is not one of those values. Bigoted values lead to the violations of rights, not their respect.

But there is another practical reason that we should not embrace bigots, in spite of their views on other issues. It taints our message with their poison. The problem with hugging pigs is you smell like dung.

Most Americans no longer hold to the bigoted values of the past and they are growing increasingly unaccepting of those that do. Long term a strategy of accepting bigots is counterproductive.

The long-term trends in this country do favor the bigots. Even in regards to gay issues, where hatred is often cloaked in theology, the trends are clear. Acceptance of equality of rights is a majority viewpoint nationally, with strong majorities in the East and the West, though the South is more bigoted. And the demographics show that this acceptance will only grow as older people die.

There is no long-term viability for a movement that embraces prejudice. Even religious based prejudice is dying out. The most intolerant religious groups are evangelicals and fundamentalists. Yet, young people in these sects are far less intolerant than their parents. And, more importantly, young people are fleeing those religions and they face massive declines in memberships. Mormonism, contrary to the PR image they like to promote, has seen no increases in members, in spite of heavy missionary attempts to convert others. Apparently the converts are just replacing the numbers those who are leaving it, which again seems to be the young.   Church support for the antigay Prop 8 in California spurred thousands to publicly denounce their membership in the church.

Religious-based bigotry is on the decline in this country largely because religion itself is on the decline. All surveys of religious beliefs show unbelievers to be the fastest growing “religious” group in the country. 

Newsweek, in their cover story for April 13, 2009—The Decline and Fall of Christian America—said that the dominant, unifying ideology holding America together, is no longer faith, but liberty. The article stated:

Judging from the broad shape of American life in the first decade of the 21st century, we value individual freedom and free (or largely free) enterprise, and tend to lean toward libertarianism on issues of personal morality. The foundational documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament (though there are undeniable connections between them). This way of life is far different from what many overtly conservative Christians would like. But that is the power of the republican system engineered by James Madison at the end of the 18th century: that America would survive in direct relation to its ability to check extremism and preserve maximum personal liberty.

Libertarians should be in the vanguard of this movement, not standing at the back of it with grumbling conservatives, looking wistfully over their shoulders at the good old days when blacks were lynched, gays were closeted and women were obedient servants of their master and husband. Leading the charge against bigotry is not only the right thing to do, but also the most practical in terms of long-term political influence. Bigotry is a voice from the past and it is one that increasing percentages of Americans are rejecting. Libertarians should do the same.