Libertarianism has morphed in the last couple of decades from a scholarly political theory housed in the halls of the universities of Europe and America into a mainstream political trend. With any theory that moves from the realm of scholarly debate into the frays of mainstream society, some of the loftier details of the theory are lost on translation, if you will. Society at large has little time for the detailed analysis required to truly get a feel for a particular theory. Academics dedicate their entire lives to studying theories such as libertarianism, yet individuals often lay claim to such theories with little understanding of their natures.

There is precious little space here to clarify all of the nuances of libertarianism. I will attempt to cover its main tenants and bring to light some criticisms the theory has drawn in order to incite more informed debate on an issue that has garnered much attention from the Paul’s, Ron and Rand, as well as the Tea Party as a whole.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers the following definition. “In the most general sense, libertarianism is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state (federal government).” While the encyclopedia turns to libertarianism as a moral philosophy, this definition of libertarianism as a political philosophy will be an excellent starting point for this piece.

This definition embodies the crux of libertarian political philosophy and all the specifics of applied libertarian theory adhere to the sentiments within the definition.

At first glance, the theory appears flawless. It seems inherently American to desire the freedom of action (behavior) and the freedom to own property (i.e. land, houses, money, cars, etc.). It also seems obvious that government should have the primary responsibility to maintain those freedoms for its citizens. But, taking a quick glance at something as important as the direction you want your government to move towards is suspect, at best. Further examination of the theory itself and the nature in which the theory is applied to real life circumstances is necessary for a more complete understanding of the political philosophy.

I should also note that when it comes to personal freedom, libertarianism and classic liberalism have much in common. Liberals also advocate for the rights of individual freedom and often turn to the same political philosophers as libertarians, such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Locke, and Adam Smith. The difference is only a matter of what government’s role in preserving this freedom is.

The main criticism of libertarianism is that it inherently leads to a society that is primarily motivated by greed, adheres to an ethic that is self-centered, materialistic and generally lacks any concern for the well being of others. While all of this may be true, it is insufficient in dismissing the theory. Libertarians counter that while they advocate for liberty, what individuals choose to do with that liberty is an entirely separate matter. While this response does nothing to alleviate the problems mentioned above, it is sound in its refutation of the criticism at hand.

There is, however, a more pertinent argument to be made against libertarianism. Author Kim Messick sums it up nicely with this: “libertarianism cannot provide a coherent account of our capacity for choice. It presents freedom as its central concern, conceptually and normatively, but is indifferent to the conditions that nurture and sustain it (social structures beyond the individual, including government). Actually, this is too weak. It is not just indifferent to these conditions: It is actively hostile to them. It cannot accept a constructive role for the social and the public; it conceives of them only as obstructions. For this very reason, a libertarian regime would be a very unreliable source of autonomous agents (free people). Libertarianism, in other words, can neither account for nor sustain its own core value.” Messick argues that libertarianism promotes freedom, but fails to recognize that freedom is only possible in an organized social order, which must be provided and protected by government in one shape or another. Freedom is also a struggle for power. One person (or group’s) freedom is likely limiting the freedom of others. Libertarians are curiously afraid of government having so much power that it can limit freedom, but fail to apply the same argument to other major power players in the world, such as central banks, multinational corporations, trade organizations (like the NRA), etc. Before we can accept the theory behind libertarianism and slap that bumper sticker on our pickup, these issues must be reconciled. Freedom spawns a great many things. The problem is, not all of them are great.

James Bliss is a Jamestown native who attended Florida State University.