When I tell people that I'm a classic liberal, they usually give me a confused look and ask me what the hell I'm talking about. At this point I bite the bullet and admit that the more common term for my political affiliation is Libertarian. Undoubtedly they reply, "Oh, so you're a conservative who smokes pot."
Actually, I don't smoke pot and I don't want to ban gay marriage. A Libertarian is someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarianism is a philosophy that values individual rights and freedom above all else. While that sentence alone describes why I'm a libertarian, I would like to take a closer look at what is wrong with the more popular political affiliations, Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats and Republicans are more alike than they are willing to admit. They both believe that government power and coercion can be used to help people. This is about where I get off the boat. The only real difference between the two parties has to do with what they think is important enough to merit government coercion: Democrats tend to favor coercion to protect citizens' physical bodies while Republicans think the state's force should be used to protect people's souls. Democrats want to ban smoking and force people to wear seatbelts. Republicans want to ban marijuana and force people to be straight. As a libertarian I don't really have to argue about what is healthy for your body or soul. Even if all smokers were going to drop dead after their first cigarette and then be damned to hell I wouldn't support state legislation on smoking. Why? Because it is an individual's right to decide whether or not his body deteriorates faster than necessary or whether or not he is damned to hell. It is not the state's decision to make.
In terms of social policy, I don't think the government should tell us what to do unless it directly affects the rights of another. Whether I smoke, cut myself, wear my seatbelt, sleep around or worship the devil should not concern the state in the slightest. In terms of fiscal policy, I think the government should stay out of my bank account. People have earned their salaries with their own sweat and toil. It should not be forcibly taken from them in the form of taxes, simply because the state thinks it has better uses for it. I earned that money and if I want to bury it in a hole in my backyard until rodents and insects devour it, then so is my right.
On a related note, I'd like to address a common point of misinformation about Libertarians. Libertarians are not intrinsically immoral or callous. I think this idea arose from Ayn Rand's theory of Objectivism, which is the same as the classically liberal philosophy. Just to put the debate to rest, I do not think that people should cut themselves or worship the devil. I don't happen to do either and would probably try to get help for anyone who did. I do believe in morality and I don't think people should be left to starve in the streets. I simply do not think that a coercive, powerful government is an appropriate means by which to attain a utopian end.
The term "Leviathan" was first used by philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that human nature was greedy and manipulative. He also believed that it would never be overcome and that human life was destined to be "nasty, brutish and short." Our only possible salvation, in Hobbes' view, was a totalitarian state. This state would come into being by the consent of the people, but once it was alive and well it would no longer require their consent. Leviathan, the state of which Hobbes speaks, would act as a powerful sea creature, binding and regulating all human action to save us from ourselves.
I feel as though our current society is too close to Leviathan for comfort - which is why I'd like to drown it.
Erin Wildermuth is a senior in the School of International Service and a libertarian columnist for The Eagle.
