A Weakness of Libertarianism?

It has been bruited about that there is a serious weakness in the libertarian philosophy. Is this true? Yes. But this flaw is not one uncovered by our intellectual enemies on the left: we favor free enterprise and capitalism is evil and greedy. Nor on the right: libertarianism is libertinism.

To review: libertarianism mandates that all people should be free to do anything they want, with but one exception: they may use violence to defend themselves and others and the property rights of all, but may not initiate any force against others or their rightfully owned property.

At first glance, that sound eminently reasonable, if I say so myself, as a libertarian. But a moment’s reflection will indicate that this is a very extreme view. It is not for nothing that libertarians are but a small part of the electorate, given that this is the basic premise of this philosophy.

For example, libertarians would legalize the right to ingest any drugs of our choosing, along with gambling, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality; so much for initiatives acceptable to the left. As for the right, in this perspective, minimum wage laws, rent control, anti-trust legislation, tariffs, zoning, the Fed, most government departments would all be repealed and racial and sexual discrimination would be legalized. Extreme laissez faire capitalism would be the order of the day.

What, then, is the weakness of this system? So far, everything sounds eminently reasonable, at least to the libertarian ear.

But there is at least one lacuna, at least from my own personal point of view. I find animal torture disgusting. I am not talking about killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I do not think that libertarianism implies, or requires, vegetarianism. In any case, they can be killed humanely, without imposing more pain than necessary to convert them into foodstuffs. Nor, even, am I discussing arranging dog or rooster bouts nor bull fighting. All of this can possibly fall under the rubric of natural law. At least in nature these animals all engage in physical combat with one another.

No, I am talking about despicable acts such as dousing a pet with gasoline and setting it on fire. Or chopping one up into little bits while still alive. It fairly turns my stomach to even write the previous sentences, let alone contemplate such appalling scenarios. I am fully aware that cats torture mice before killing them, but somehow I am able to forgive a feline, but not a human being, who emulates that species in this regard.

What does this have to do with libertarianism? Under the legal code of this philosophy, animal torment such as the aforementioned would be entirely legal. What I feel like doing to those who torment animals, at the very least, would be to punch them in the nose. And, maybe, subject them to a bit of agony to let them know how it feels to be on the receiving end. Maybe that would teach them the error or their ways. Even if not, they richly deserve such punishment.

However to do any such thing would be a crime under libertarian law. The NAP of libertarianism involves intra-species acts alone. If a vicious man legitimately owns an animal, he may do whatever he wishes with it, and libertarian law cannot say him nay.

I regard that as a weakness of this otherwise heaven-sent perspective. The only excuse for it is that libertarian law deals, only, with intra-human relations, and this issue falls outside of that purview.

However, there is more to be said about this intriguing issue. For example, are there any licit extrajudicial approaches to regulating behavior? Surely there is at least one: the boycott. Decent people, libertarians or not, can refuse to have anything to do with animal abusers. This may well not suffice in eradicating the problem, but at least it may well move us in a more civilized direction.

Then, there is the difficulty of statutorily defining the considerable gray area between unacceptable and unacceptable behavior towards animals. Surely, when training a dog, harsh words, sticking its nose in the mess it made, even a newspaper swat would not count as abusive. Setting the animal on fire certainly would. As on all such occasions, there is a continuum problem: where to draw the line. We know, for instance, that if you go to be with a five year old girl, you are properly a statutory rapist. Not so for a 25 year old woman. But where to draw the line? Should it be 18? 15? 17? The problem here, as in the animal case, is that no such dividing line can be deduced from the libertarian principles of the non-aggression principle, private property rights based upon homesteading and the right of free association.

We are often at sea without a rudder. Yes another unclear demarcation point arises when we consider which animals should “count”. One not unreasonable distinction would be between those that can feel pain and those which cannot. Although even here there are gradations, in which case we ask, well, how much pain?

No, we do not have all the answers, but hopefully these considerations will move us in the direction of a more satisfactory libertarian theory.

Vegetarianism:

Block, Walter E. 2022. “Animal Rights from the Perspective of Evictionism; Rejoinder to Cesario.” Studia Humana, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 10-19; DOI: 10.2478/sh-2021-0023;