The “Liberty Is Your Only Value” Canard

by Stephan Kinsella on April 29, 2025

On stupid and confused “thickism” see various posts under tag thickism, and Cory Massimino, “Libertarianism is More than Anti-Statism,” C4SS (April 8th, 2014).

***

Many times I have noted that one criticism of libertarianism is that it is too simplistic, in that its “only value” is liberty. This is usually stated by some statist who grudgingly concedes that they value liberty, that liberty is a value, but for them it’s not the only value. ¹ As I wrote previously,

Calling rights absolute is just a tactic of those who simply have no principled opposition to aggression. They believe aggression is usually wrong, or unjust—but not always. In other words, they think it is not unjust to commit aggression. This is why they do not respect property rights on principled grounds and are willing to infringe property rights if there is a more important value, like “freedom.” Or some other value, like equality or basic welfare rights, and so on. Those who favor “non-absolute” rights really favor or condone aggression (in some circumstances), and should not hide behind misleading characterizations of libertarian opponents of aggression as being “absolutists.” Liberty is not our “only value,” but it is a value, and we oppose aggression. As I wrote in my book:

Now, as a human being, I, like every other libertarian, have values other than liberty. We are not just libertarians, ever. However, we do value liberty, and we oppose aggression. For us it is a “side-constraint,” to use Nozick’s phrase: we believe aggression is simply wrong, or unjustifiable. As Nozick wrote, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).”13 When the conservative, or liberal, or minarchist, or “bleeding heart” libertarian starts wagging their finger and tut-tutting that they oppose aggression but that unlike the “simpleminded” libertarian it is not their “only value,” you can be sure they are setting the stage to propose or endorse or condone some kind of invasion of liberty—some act of aggression. That is, when I hear people, even some libertarians, condescendingly denounce our focus on aggression as the primary social evil, …. I want to hold onto my wallet, because they are coming after it. Or as Ayn Rand says in “Francisco’s Money Speech,” “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.”14 Likewise, when someone says aggression is not the only thing that matters, they are about to advocate aggression. Keep an eye on these people. ²

A recent example is by conservative James Orr in a debate with Stephen Hicks, an Objectivist if I am not mistaken, where Orr repeats this tired canard. ³ Orr says, around 1:01:34, “if you’ve got freedom as the highest value—and just and let’s just assume you can sequester it within a political domain—that’s only going to work if you’ve got, outside the political domain, a sense of what makes life meaningful that is shared at least to some degree…”

It’s like playing whack-a-mole with these aggression-condoning weasels.

Update: See also Johnny Kramer, “What Libertarianism Is Not,” LewRockwell.com (Aug. 19, 2008), section 2, “Libertarianism is not an exaltation of individual liberty above all — especially not above property rights.”

See also Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Against Libertarian Brutalism,” FEE (March 12, 2014); and Relationship of Politics to Morality, hnn:

A manufactured conflict is flashing through libertarianism: self-described “humanitarians” versus insultingly-labeled “brutalists.” In a much circulated article entitled “Against Libertarian Brutalism,” the libertarian luminary Jeffrey Tucker defines the “humanitarians” (of whom he is one) as people who love liberty because it “allows peaceful human cooperation… creative service… keeps violence at bay… allows for capital formation and prosperity… leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves.” In short, “humanitarian libertarians” value liberty because of the sheer beauty of the society it creates. (Note: The article was published in a March issue of FEE but the faux conflict is still active.)

By contrast, “brutal libertarians” are said to find “what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on ‘politically incorrect’ standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used… to be openly racist and sexist.” In short, “brutal libertarians” value liberty because it allows them to hate and to discriminate.

Unfortunately, the article also defines “brutal libertarians” as being “rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be.” In other words, we (I am a brutalist by the preceding definition) believe in living peacefully without imposing our moral values on others; we view the non-aggression principle as the non-aggression principle. Politically-speaking, I adhere to nonviolence and for this I am considered hate-filled.

Tucker offers the example of “a town that is taken over by a fundamentalist sect that excludes all peoples not of the faith, forces women into burka-like clothing, imposes a theocratic legal code, and ostracizes gays and lesbians.” And, yet, everyone is there voluntarily. He continues, “The brutalists will… defend such a microtyranny on grounds of decentralization, rights of property, and the right to discriminate and exclude – completely dismissing the larger picture here that, after all, people’s core aspirations to live a full and free life are being denied on a daily basis.”

Ignore errors such as presuming that decentralization or property ownership are used by libertarians to defend a violation of rights. Forget how difficult (or impossible) it is to find someone who advocates and lives nonviolence because he is hate-filled. Or the strong tendency for such a person to also adopt a moral code of civil behavior toward others. I do not know any voluntaryist who does not also have a strong personal ethics that includes tolerance, if not kindness toward others. But also, they believe their moral sentiments must not be imposed; what cannot be accomplished by peaceful means should not be accomplished at all.

Consider instead how easily the article skips over the “voluntary” aspect of the town. Or how a voluntary town could “force” women into burka-like clothing. Or how the article presumes that accommodating the aspirations of others is the responsibility of strangers.

I’ve tried to extract something positive from the article’s “humanitarian” argument, and there is an interesting question raised, albeit obliquely. The question: What is the relationship between politics and morality?

See also Laurence M. Vance, “Libertarianism and Value Judgments,” FFF (Feb. 1, 2025).