I had wanted to write about economics today, but I suppose there is plenty of doom and gloom in the big media. Not that there aren’t good fundamental reasons for it – I just decided I’d go a little different direction.

As a long-time libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, I’ve grown accustomed to being called idealistic to a fault and labeled as basically dismissive of opposing points of view. I’d say I’m guilty, and don’t intend to change anytime soon. So why do professing libertarians tend to be this way? Why are we intellectually intolerant of competing worldviews? Good questions that deserve a stab at an answer.

Libertarians necessarily view the world idealistically, and give little weight to pragmatic arguments that don’t comport with our basic belief that no one has the right to run the life of anyone else. This is the core of libertarianism, and any deviation represents (to us) a moral infraction.

The indignation you see from libertarians on the subject of taxation (that can come across as being rigid and inflexible) is rooted in that basic premise. The most basic right among natural rights (beyond the right of each to their existence) is the right of property. This right is seen as inviolable, in that I have no morally compelling reason to appropriate the belongings of my neighbor without his consent. It doesn’t matter that I might deem that I could use his belongings more efficiently, or that I might think him undeserving of his property. The inverse is also true, that my neighbor cannot morally lay claim to any portion of my own labors. This is the golden rule in action.

The immoral act, according to libertarians, does not become less immoral as a groundswell develops in favor of confiscating my neighbor’s belongings. Let’s see how that works.

To the scenario detailed above, we add a third neighbor, who agrees with me that our neighbor has more wealth than he deserves, and is not using it wisely. We now have a majority. Does it become moral for us to appropriate his belongings for the ‘common good’ – as determined by those doing the appropriating ? If the wealthier neighbor disagrees with our determination, is there any manner by which we can affect such confiscation without employing force or the threat of force? If he resists, is forcibly taking his belongings justified?

If your answer to those questions is no, you just might be a libertarian too.

To be certain, society is more intricate and complex than interactions between me and my neighbors. The pertinent question becomes – How big does the clamoring mob have to be before theft stops being theft and becomes good government? Is adding a third neighbor on the side of seizure enough? The entire neighborhood? The whole city?

To the libertarian, there is not a quorum so large that it ever becomes moral to steal the rightful property, fairly earned by their labors, of any individual. Any suggestion that there is a point at which the would-be plunderers of his wealth gain a moral imperative for the theft is in direct contravention of the libertarian’s understanding of morality.

If you don’t share our outlook on this subject, you might be able to gain insight into our viewpoint with an analogy. Most human beings find rape to be an evil without excuse or redeeming trait – correctly, of course. If a particular isolated town has 500 men and only 50 women, these are obviously ripe conditions for social unrest. Only 10% of the men can have their primal needs met (assuming a traditional, one-man-one-woman paradigm). The same principle of scarcity that existed when we were talking about my neighbor’s belongings is in play in this analogue. Is there ever a point at which the needs of the majority (by my count, the 450 men left to ‘fend for themselves’) become more important than protecting the rights of the other 100 people (50 men and 50 women) who have entered into voluntary association with one another? Does a majority vote render the social proscriptions against forcibly appropriating the body of another person less relevant? Does the vote of the 450 relegate the rights of those 50 women null and void in the pursuit of the common good?

My answer is a resounding no, whether the right at issue is that of those 50 women to be free from physical violation or of my neighbor to dispose of his wealth as he alone sees fit. Rationalizing can make both instances of popular immorality expedient; but there is no amount of rationalizing that can ever render the actions moral.

It is from this basic concept that all libertarian thinking emanates. To a libertarian, the arguments are equivalent. Understand this and you will have a much better frame of reference for understanding the perception that libertarians are intolerant of opposing viewpoints – just as the reader is likely a libertarian on the subject of rape, and intolerant of the pro-rape arguments. Are you ever asked to defend your ‘rigid, inflexible’ positions for opposing relativistic arguments justifying rape?

Beyond the philosophical argument, it is tough to deny that collectivist policies do not generally comport with a free society.