Philosophically educated readers will recognize the reference to Bertrand Russell’s book “Why I’m not a Christian". This article is by no means as extensive as Russell’s work, but more like a personal snapshot of my current thoughts about libertarians in Germany (and in some sense worldwide).
What is a libertarian?
For most people this question does not arise at all. Either because they have nothing to do with the term itself, or because they are deeply alienated by the idea of a society that exists largely free of state intervention.
Both are understandable positions - suitable for the majority, so to speak.
Now I find myself in the situation that I am familiar both with the concept of libertarianism and with the conviction that fewer state interventions usually lead to better final results. The many reasons that have led me to this view should not, however, be discussed here for the time being, as the purpose of this article is of a more fundamental nature.
In order to better understand the following paragraphs, it is necessary to make a brief excursion into the history of libertarian ideas.
The intellectual precursors of liberal and libertarian ideas (there is a reason why these terms should not be used synonymously nowadays, historically, however, this is acceptable) can be traced back to ancient Israel and Greece. Already at that time there were considerations regarding universally valid moral principles, which stood out from the legal positivism of the state ("Good is what law is") and to which even the most powerful rulers had to bow. These thoughts were, of course, mostly based on religion at the time, but they formed the basis for the liberal philosophy that followed.
With scholastic scholars such as Thomas Aquinas or Francisco de Vitoria, the idea of so-called "self-ownership" finally found its way into public consciousness for the first time. This right to one's own body and mind was eventually destined to form the foundation for a libertarian philosophy, which at the same time provided the basis for many of today's widespread individual rights.
The 17th and 18th centuries finally represented the first high point of liberal philosophy, when John Locke and Adam Smith provided the necessary arguments as to why liberalism was the smarter way to go politically, socially and economically. Many of the negative freedoms (freedom of something) we enjoy today are based on the core ideas of these thinkers.
During the ever-increasing industrialization over the course of the 19th century, the priorities of many liberal thinkers and politicians shifted in the face of the now emerging question of how to deal with growing social inequality. Quite a few feared that the political freedoms that had just been so hard fought for would be undermined by extreme income disparities and that the rich of any society would set the rules for everyone else. As a result, many liberals now spoke out in favour of market regulation, higher taxes for the rich, trade unions and social welfare. Social democracy was born. Such ideas are by no means modern inventions of the political left.
One can already see the central problem of the concept of liberalism at this point:
It is almost impossible to define it homogeneously.
Which brings me to libertarianism.
Nowadays, it is mostly understood as a counter-concept to the so-called liberals in the USA (comparable to social democracy in terms of the history of ideas), which again focuses on (self) ownership, free market economy, individualism, skepticism towards state power as well as the non-aggression principle (NAP).
However, this was not always the case. In the period before the 1950s and 1960s of the 20th century, libertarianism by no means described only the characteristics just mentioned. The term was also very widespread within anarchist Marxist theories, which is why the term "left-libertarian", which is often used rather sarcastically today, certainly has a real, anti-capitalist background.
As a result of the increasing spread of the welfare state in the US in the first half of the 20th century (listen and be amazed: the US is by no means the ultra-capitalist country without social assistance that many Europeans still see today), many former liberals turned away from this term. In their view, the new liberalism betrayed its roots and the important ideas of its classical forefathers. Therefore, from the 1950s onwards, prominent figures such as Henry Louis Mencken and Albert Jay Nock coined the term libertarians as a counterpart to the now corrupted liberal.
With the writings of other libertarian thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Thomas Sowell, the term "libertarian" became known to an increasingly broad public and today symbolizes for most people a minimalist or private-law society based on a capitalist economic system, individual rights and the NAP as the highest goods.
This is, quite obviously, in contradiction to how most people today imagine a social order. Especially in Germany the idea of more personal responsibility, less state regulation and less taxes is frowned upon in many places.
Nevertheless, there is also a small but active libertarian community in this country, which organizes itself in various ways. Be it at libertarian informal meetings in different cities; the German branch of the Students for Liberty, in closed Facebook groups or in projects like Staatenlos / Tax Free Today.
During the past years I have either followed or been involved in all kinds of discussions within the German libertarian scene in various forums and media. At some point I became very aware of something: The scene has a big problem - a tinfoil-hat-problem, to be precise.
Now, of course, it is almost a statistical necessity that in a sufficiently large population there are also a few individuals who represent very questionable theses - but this share seems to be disproportionately high among the German libertarians.
Quite often statements are made which one would expect in this way rather from a PEGIDA demonstration or an AfD meeting (a populist right-wing party) - but not from people who pretend to respect the self-determination rights of other people.
At some point I gave up arguing against all the "9/11 was an inside job!" fanatics, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and similar conspiracy theorists. There is no point in it. For a good part of the people within the scene, anything that is somehow "official" consensus must be considered skeptical per se or is just a conspiracy (by whoever). Unfortunately, these people are also often the ones who get the most attention and thus shape the image of everyone.
I don't want that anymore. I don't want to be associated with it. Because everybody can call himself libertarian and nobody has the authority to decide what a libertarian actually is, a lot of people gather under this label, with whom I don't want to be associated.
I remember a discussion with an allegedly libertarian person. After Deniz Yücel was released, my counterpart said that Yücel should not have been supported by the Federal Government, because he once wrote a glossary in a German newspaper which did not present Germany in a favourable way. As a reminder, libertarianism also means that freedom of expression is an absolute good - any restriction is illegitimate. An imprisoned journalist is the very symbol of a violation of this right and his release should be morally imperative.
I do not want to be associated with people who call themselves libertarian and consider it acceptable, if other people end up in prison because of their opinions.
Of course, not everyone is like that. Fortunately, there are also positive counter-examples. Christoph Heuermann, the founder of Staatenlos / Tax Free Today, recently made this clear by showing that libertarian ideas should unite people and not divide them. He gave me permission to quote him for this article:
"Let me remind you again. I am glad that so many different people here, who would probably tear each other apart in discussions, provide such intensive practical support. Please leave politics out of this - nothing is more divisive than the state. Anyone who insults group members because of their religion, gender or whatever next time will be kicked out of this group. In this group it is about practical support - not about Reich citizens' gibberish or agitation against Muslims. One can criticise the refugee policy very sharply and also quite legitimately vote AfD, but please remain differentiated. Those who already live freely should not be concerned with such topics at all..."
Such clear statements are good and important and I am grateful for the fact that again and again there are voices that do exactly that. But the idea of libertarianism in this country is already too corrupted to be able to convince anyone. If I tell someone that I am libertarian, a reaction like "Oh, these are the supercapitalistic conspiracy theorists, aren't they?" often occurs.
Try to convince someone of your ideas with this starting position. That makes you jealous of Sisyphus.
So I'm caught in a paradox: I think like a libertarian, act (mostly) like a libertarian - but I don't want to be a libertarian.
The solution?
Pay less attention to terms, and focus more on content. I remain convinced that all people can benefit from more liberal ideas - just as billions of them have done over the past millennia. Whether you call yourself liberal, libertarian, anarchic or whatever, it doesn't really matter.
Freedom is not the fight over words, but everyday practice.
