Libertarianism, the Atheism of Politics

Some people look at the full glory and diversity of the environment and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened. Proofs that it can and does happen naturally fail to convince, because the system is just too diverse and complex for these people to accept it as something that happened without a guiding force. These people are Creationists.

Creationists refuse to believe that evolution can happen because there is so much complexity and diversity. It boils down to an argument from incredulity. Although there are Theistic Evolutionists (not to be confused with advocates of Intelligent Design) the arguments from Creationists focus on trying to accuse atheist opponents of supporting evolution as a religious doctrine. They try to paint Darwin as a prophet, and random mutation and natural selection (RM/NS) as divine forces.

Some people, of the more liberal persuasion, look at the full glory and diversity of the economy and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened.

Statists refuse to believe that the economy can simply happen spontaneously because there is so much complexity and diversity. They see that economies can only happen with a central plan. They try to accuse libertarians as having the central market as a mystical central planner and the invisible hand as a divine force, when in fact "invisible hand" and "free market" are only metaphorical representations of what is happening in the market.

Some people, of the more conservative persuasion, look at the full glory and diversity of society and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened.

Statists refuse to believe that society can simply happen spontaneously because there is so much complexity and diversity. Much as theists often ask atheists "what is to stop you from committing crimes without god?" statists often ask libertarians "what is to stop you from committing crimes without government?" Atheists and libertarians both reply "because I choose to be so, I don't depend on an outside agency to tell me right from wrong."

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God and a divine morality. Libertarianism is simply the lack of belief in government and a mandated morality.

Legal Positivsm

There seems to be, in the United States, a general assumption that when something is immoral it should be illegal, and if something is illegal it is therefore immoral. This assumption most often strikes those who argue against state interference, since the accusation is always that those who favor liberty therefore favor immorality. People also conflate opposing a program or strategy with opposing the goal of that program or strategy, because a law has been passed to make it so and that makes it good. Has legal positivism actually taken hold in the United States? Or is it the case that it is a convenient mental shortcut for a population no longer skilled at thinking about issues in depth?

Legal positivism is an enemy of any natural rights basis for formulating law. Under natural rights there are standards that a government must not cross, but under legal positivism there are no such standards since the law itself is the standard. Defenders of the state will try to paint libertarians in a bad light by saying “the laws you object to are legally enacted by the duly elected representatives of the American people and those representatives are elected and re-elected without any real objection from the majority of the American people.” That phrase aptly describes the Fugitive Slave Laws, and those who make that argument should be reminded of that fact.

A stronger case can be made that the average person is not a full legal positivist. To be an actual positivist is to embrace a philosophical system. Most people instead think of themselves as pragmatic while endorsing some of the most non-pragmatic laws and programs. It could be called intellectual laziness, but most people have never bothered to consider matters deeply. People seldom actually consider things to be right or wrong because it is law, but instead take the lesser positivist route and believe that what is right and wrong should be made into law.

It is necessary to disengage morality and legality from each other if liberty is to be achieved. If it is possible to say "that is immoral but should not be illegal" and to have that not sound strange then people are free. That they are so often found together shows the inroads legal positivism has made through a combination of poor education and laziness.