Here is how I explained libertarianism to a group of authoritarians.
(The exercise — part of an advanced personal growth seminar — was to illustrate a strongly held belief, and libertarian ethics is probably one of my strongest values.)
I sat John down in a chair on the stage, and turned to explain to the 35 attendees:
“Let’s say that John was peacefully minding his own business
but I wanted something that John had,
or I wanted John to do something that he didn’t want to do.”
I held my index and thumb like a gun and pointed it to John’s head.
“Almost everyone agrees that
if I threaten violence against an otherwise peaceful John
… to give me something that is justly his
…… or to do something for me that he does not want to do,
that I am doing something evil and wicked.”
Everyone was smiling and nodding.
(In liberal Massachusetts, “We don’t like guns”;
they knew where this was going!)
I pulled up burly Andrew, had him point his “gun” at John’s head, and took out a $100 bill.
“And almost everyone also agrees that
if I hire a thug like Andrew
… to threaten violence against an otherwise peaceful John
that I am still doing something evil and wicked.”
Most were still nodding, but a few, more politically astute, were showing worried signs of caution.
I brought Steve onto the stage, placed him behind Andrew.
I gave Steve $200 and had him hand one of the $100 bills to Andrew who was still holding the gun to John’s head.
“But most people think that,
if I vote to hire a politician like Steve,
… who hires an “officer” like Andrew,
…… to threaten violence against an otherwise peaceful John
……… to take that which is John’s and give it to me,
then what was evil before is evil no more
… but has been magically transformed into Good.
And I drove home our point about the universality of human ethics:
“A libertarian is someone who does not believe
that human ethics change
based on the number of intermediaries,
… how I choose them,
…… or what I call them.
While this distinguishes libertarian ethics from authoritarian ethics succinctly and clearly, those who have been indoctrinated into believing that political authority provides an exception to universal human ethics — that is, that they may hire rulers to ethically do that which they know they may not ethically do themselves — will very likely still not understand the mind-blowing point you have just made. You will need to go through with them and have them explain how the same act that is unethical for you becomes ethical for a politician.
The group I illustrated this to politely clapped, but several were visibly angry. One old lady fumed for the rest of the day and waddled up to me later to threaten me bodily, should I ever do “that” again.
One can only presume that the “that” — which she insisted I must never ever do again — referred to never again condemning violence against an otherwise peaceful innocent person in order to profit myself, as long as the violence is threatened through a recognized “authority” (e.g. a politician or bureaucrat).
Which is how authoritarians protect their ethical exception — the only thing that justifies extortion, violent bullying, maiming, and killing.
But our libertarian point is that hiring someone to do your evil act does not make evil Good. Evil remains evil, and one’s complicity cannot be ignored.
~ Dennis Pratt, Quora answer, November 12, 2019
