Race, Collectivism, and Liberty
Just what is a libertarian? Well, there seems to be two different definitions.
First, there are small “l” libertarians. These are people who want more liberty because they perceive a specific limitation of their own personal rights. This limitation sometimes derives from the actions of government but not always. Small “l” libertarians come in all flavors of the political spectrum. They can be right or left or anything in between. For instance, a left leaning libertarian may argue for abolition of laws around drugs or sex work, but welcome the State’s limitation on businesses’ right to limit to whom they sell. The right leaning libertarian may argue for the State to have no role in gun control, but have no problem with the State’s ability to build a wall at the border.
Small “l” libertarians are very confusing to those wanting to learn about personal liberty. Depending on who you listen to, liberty may sound inviting or pretty frightening. It’s quite possible to hear from someone who says they are libertarian and decide you’d never want to hear from a libertarian again.
Then, there are big “L” Libertarians. These are people who want more personal liberty because liberty is a necessary social good for a just society. They aren’t particularly worried about the limitations placed on them as a primary reason for wanting liberty. They‘re more interested in a free society for all people. They figure, if society is free and fair, their rights will be fine. For big “L” Libertarians, the left/right debate doesn’t make much sense, because there is no left or right to personal liberty. The divide isn’t between left and right, but between personal liberty and authoritarianism.
Big “L” Libertarians are an individualistic lot. For them, authoritarianism starts with what many in society see as a necessary evil, collectivism. Collectivism is a way of defining people by the group they belong to. It’s popular because it gives social planners an easy way to deal with social problems. You can count and calculate with groups better than you can with individuals. If one subgroup is poorer, someone (let’s call it government) can take something from another richer subgroup and give it to the poorer subgroup, strengthening the group cohesiveness as a whole. This, of course, requires a force that can redistribute resources to promote the greater welfare of the average of the group. Collectivism is the idea that rationalizes a group’s ability to create force to interfere with an individual’s liberty. Left collectivism or right collectivism or any flavor in between is no safer than any other. Collectivism means that your liberty will one day be limited, even if you don’t threaten anyone else’s.
For some reason, a currently popular collectivist idea revolves around race and national origin. Of course, race hasn’t always been the most important collectivist idea, but it’s riding high right now. This idea has taken on a left/right component and has the little “l” libertarians in an uproar.
I don’t think we should care if the group a person belongs to tends on average to be different than the rest of us. I think we need to judge the individual. I don’t see the point of favoring white politicians or black politicians; I want to vote for the individual who will do the best job for me. I don’t think this stops with groups we belong to without choice, like race or the religion we’re born into. This also applies to groups we join. I don’t want to judge all Republicans or all Democrats the same or assume what they believe. I’d rather talk to them and find out.
My problem with racism in libertarians has nothing to do with denying them the right to any stupid belief they want. My problem with racism is that it is a particular form of collectivism, and once you start thinking in a collectivist way, it’s very hard to stop. Sure, it’s easy to make general statements about Democrats, or people from Idaho, or Southerners or even authoritarians. It may seem socially acceptable and without negative consequence. And it is, for a while. But after a while, the habit of grouping people and thinking collectively instead of individually becomes the rule of thumb. “Oh, he’s a Trump supporter,” “Oh, she’s from Europe,” “Oh, he’s Hispanic.” It seems safe to use the rule of thumb and make assumptions about an individual because of the group they are a part of.
About now, you’re probably wondering why I wrote this (if you got this far). I’ll tell you. If you don’t like racism, if you want to get rid of racism in the liberty movement, stop trying to get rid of racists. Don’t focus on a group. Don’t lump people together in a collectivist way to kick them out. Using collectivism to fight collectivism never works. You can’t fight right wing fascism with left wing socialism; they are both the same thing. The antidote to both is individual liberty.
What can we do instead? Well, when someone expresses a collectivist idea, like categorizing people by race, we could point out that liberty belongs to the individual, not a group. We could refocus the person on the true focus of the liberty movement, and if enough people do that, the small “l” collectivist may see the light or leave. Either way, you don’t have to become a collectivist to fight collectivism. After all, it doesn’t work.
