Three New Arguments to Support a Libertarian Politics | Moral Libertarian Talk

One of the reasons why libertarianism isn't doing so well right now is because the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP) in real life isn't always straightforward. Don't get me wrong, I think the NAP is still valuable and important. But it appears that we really can't build a whole politics on that alone. Therefore, I suggest some other arguments that can be used to support a freedom-orientated politics:

1. The Truth Argument

This one is simple. People should be free to discover the truth, via debate and experimentation, free from undue influence or coercion. This is the only way we will get to know the objective truth better. Any prohibition on this process would necessarily distort the functioning of the marketplace of ideas, and hence our understanding of the truth. This alone should be enough to justify the case for maximizing freedom.

2. The Compassion Argument

Top-down rigid policy prescriptions often have unintended consequences, that actually harm people in real life. In Western two-party system states, the government tends to be biased towards one tribe in society or another, making this problem worse. On the other hand, when you give people freedom, they tend to know what to do with their lives most of the time, and they tend to know how to solve their own problems better than the government does. This is why it is almost always the objectively compassionate thing to do to give people more freedom.

3. The Extended Religious Freedom Argument

This is a more philosophical argument, and is closely aligned with the Moral Libertarian philosophy of 'equal moral agency'. Basically, freedom of religion traditionally requires the right to identify one's religious beliefs, to espouse one's religious beliefs, and to practice one's religious beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. The reason why such a premium was placed on religious beliefs was because this idea came during a time when almost everyone was deeply religious, and the Western world was torn apart by sectarian religious conflicts. In this day and age, where not everyone is deeply religious, there is no reason to just prioritize religious beliefs. Moreover, while not everyone's beliefs are rooted in religion these days, the West remains a culture of competing beliefs, and if we don't extend the application of freedom of religion to non-religious beliefs, the historical problem of sectarian conflicts based on conflicting worldviews would likely recur. 

Therefore, I believe we should extend the religious freedom guarantee to all sincerely held philosophical beliefs, i.e. there should be a right for everyone to identify one's philosophical and moral beliefs, to espouse one's philosophical and moral beliefs, and to practice one's philosophical and moral beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. If anything, I think this is the only way that we can maintain the peace in Western countries for the foreseeable future.