The Soft Totalitarianism of Principled Libertarians

PRINCIPLED LIBERTARIAN: Craves the power of the state as badly as those he ridicules.
PRINCIPLED LIBERTARIAN: Craves the power of the state as badly as those he ridicules.

Libertarians are being presented as a sort of neutral, moral political school of thought.  But are they?  Libertarianism is decidedly antichristian at its core.



LIBERTARIANISM: n. a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment. While libertarians share a skepticism of authority, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems.

When this writer was a heathen, he characterized himself as a hypenated libertarian.  As he had somewhat of a moral framework, there was little chance he would become a full-blown libertarian.

As a guest on a libertarian talk show, the question was posed “Do you believe in a military draft?”

The response was along the lines of “Well, if the country was in a state of emergency, a draft might be necessary.”

“Then you sir are not a principled libertarian.”

Apparently, in the mind of the host, one was either for or against–and there were no legitimate qualifying circumstances. The remark was made that using “principled” in that manner was just another way of saying “unthinking, unquestioning automaton.”

Over the next few years, it became clear that “principled libertarian” meant “being relieved of the responsibility of having to evaluate, judge or make decisions.  If one was “principled,” one acted on those principles no matter how absurd.


Libertarians often protest “they just want government to leave them alone.

This is true–as long as government leaves them alone on their terms. Otherwise, they’re whining about the government.

Libertarians often try to present themselves as a political alternative: above the fray; not Republicans, not Democrats; surveying the landscape as morally-neutral referees.

But the libertarian is anything but morally neutral.  By definition, the movement is  incredibly self-centered–which makes it the perfect movement for 21st century America. Most libertarians have an anti-biblical worldview.  As we get closer to the climax of history’s events, that becomes crystal clear.

“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”
Psalm 2:2-3

The heathen kings and rulers of the earth in Psalm 2 are apparently principled libertarians, ever watching for opportunities to “break their bands asunder.” They declare they will not submit to God or His anointed.  They desire no law higher than their own preferences, regardless of what civilization, society or others around them may wish.

One example is the article, Repeal the Drinking Age. This article  is the product of a “principled libertarian” mindset.  Articles of this type are a staple in the libertarian media.

No good can come out of making alcohol legally available to 10-year-olds.

None.  And the author doesn’t pretend that there is any good which can come from such a policy.  However, policies which differ with the author’s preferences are described as “insane” and “bizarre.”

One reason for advocating such a position is so the author of this piece can achieve self-satisfaction by claiming to be a “principled” libertarian.  Another is a reluctance to be bound by society’s rules.  Such minds are hard at work producing other articles advocating child sex, incest and dozens of other social pathologies.

All in the name of “principle.”  Or sometimes, “reason.”

Here’s the dirty secret about principled libertarianism: it’s a one-way street.

Libertarians have preferences.  They desire that their preferences become the law of the land.  When others’ preferences are chosen instead, then libertarians wax eloquent about such things as “choice” and “freedom.”  But in a free society, choices other than what the libertarians desire have been made.

Why is that not counted as “choice” or “freedom”?

In a free society, choosing to make no choice is a choice–and libertarians want their choices to be enforced by the lethal power of the state just as surely as their opponents do.

But only libertarians get to hide behind the skirts of their beloved no-nanny state–while hurling insults at those who disagree.

It’s a one-way street and principled libertarians yearn to be the traffic cops.

At least in their journals–where they demonstrate that they crave control just as badly as the ones they regularly deride.

So it is not just principled libertarians who are opposed to a biblical worldview.   It is libertarianism in general.  By definition.

The principled libertarian is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

Taken to that logical conclusion, the principled libertarian will argue against any civilized restraint, whether it is doing away with age of consent laws altogether or yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

Principled libertarians are merely anarchists who haven’t lit the Molotov cocktail yet.


[Parts of this piece originally appeared in End Times Prophecy Headlines: June 30, 2014  and End Times Prophecy Headlines: February 5, 2014.]


by Jeremiah J. Jameson
–with Mondo Frazier

© Jeremiah J. Jameson and End Times Prophecy Report, 2012-13. © Mondo Frazier, DBKP and End Times Prophecy Report, 2007-13. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jeremiah J. Jameson and End Times Prophecy Report with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Link Disclaimer: inclusion of links to other blogs/websites is not necessarily an endorsement of all content posted in those blogs/websites.


Author: Jeremiah J Jameson

End Times Prophecy Report - Publisher and author

18 thoughts on “The Soft Totalitarianism of Principled Libertarians”

  1. “Libertarians have preferences. They desire that their preferences become the law of the land.”

    What is an example of a preference that principled libertarians want to impose on others? None are given in this post.


    1. Jesse Fortner,

      Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to leave a comment.

      Au contraire.

      The example of abolishing the drinking age was not only cited and commented on, a link to the original article at was provided.

      Thanks once more for the comment.


      1. How is repealing a law imposing a law on others? That is truly Orwellian. Libertarians want to get rid of offensive violence because we accept the truth that it is unjustified no matter the source. It is statists like you who want to impose your little ideas on the rest of us using the violent mechanisms of the state. It is you who are imposing, not us.


      2. Brandon,

        Thank you for taking the time to stop and leave a comment.

        How is repealing a law imposing a law on others? That is truly Orwellian. Libertarians want to get rid of offensive violence because we accept the truth that it is unjustified no matter the source.

        How is repealing a law imposing a law on others? That is truly Orwellian.

        What is “truly Orwellian” is that you have no concept of the state imposing its will on others. Apparently you have no young children. You can only see the state allowing 10-year-olds to drink alcohol as it fits within your narrow worldview.

        Under a repeal of drinking age laws:

        IF you did have young children and someone got your 8-year-old drunk, you would have to be okay with that. You would have no recourse: no crime had been committed. You would have to accept it every time someone got your 8-year-old daughter drunk. And if there were no age-of-consent laws (another target of principled libertarians), then if your 8-year-old drunk daughter was taken advantage of, again, you would have no legal recourse: no crimes would have been committed.

        The only thing Orwellian about this scenario is that you cannot imagine how someone else might not support your dsytopian vision of what constitutes a just and moral society.

        “…we accept the truth that it is unjustified…”

        Exactly the point of the article.

        Question: Who decides what is “unjustified” and what is the “truth?”

        Answer: You (libertarians) do!

        If others decide contrary to what you have decided the “truth” is, that decision–made in a democracy–is of no matter to you.

        A choice was made: it just wasn’t YOUR choice.

        So you will complain and demonstrate and whine about the “state controlling you.” IF YOUR choice was made, you would have no complaints about the state enforcing your choices because you agreed with them.

        To use the example of drinking age, if the state abolishes the drinking age, you would have no problem with the state supporting YOUR choice with lethal force–only when the state enforces choices you do not agree with. Once more, if you had an 8-year-old daughter who your neighbor got drunk, you would have no recourse. IF you took action to see that it didn’t happen again, the state would descend on you with the full power at its disposal.

        It is statists like you who want to impose your little ideas on the rest of us using the violent mechanisms of the state. It is you who are imposing, not us.

        Cool. Probably the first time in my life I’ve been called a “statist.”

        Again, when someone else’s choices are made, you call it “statist” and it is unacceptable. When YOUR choices prevail, it is “truth.”

        Heads you win, tails, everyone else loses.

        No wonder most libertarians whine more than a group of junior high school girls over a cancelled slumber party.

        Thanks for providing concrete evidence for the themes of this article. (So much so, there may be some who wonder that this writer did not compose this comment himself.)

        Thanks once more for taking the time to comment.


      3. Jeremiah:

        Imagine we’re at the ice cream store together. You want to tell me that I MUST get vanilla ice cream. That would be you imposing your preferences on me. If you were to tell my that I can get any kind of ice cream, but I must not get chocolate, you’re still imposing your preferences on me.

        Now suppose I insist that I be allowed to get whichever flavor I want, regardless of your preferences. That is NOT imposing my preferences on you, but merely requesting that you respect my right to live by my own preferences.


      4. Under a repeal of drinking age laws:

        IF you did have young children and someone got your 8-year-old drunk, you would have to be okay with that.

        Currently there are no eating chocolate age laws. Does that mean you have to be OK with someone feeding your 8 year old massive amounts of chocolate?


      5. Martin,

        Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

        It means that you want the state to back up your preferences with lethal force. IF someone fed my child large quantities of chocolate and there were no laws against it, I would have no legal recourse.

        In your world, this is great–because in your world, the state back up your preferences with lethal force. IF I make take it into my hands to ensure that large amounts of chocolate-eating does not re-occur, then the state will come after me with its entire power.

        Again, libertarians are okay with the state using its force to back up YOUR preferences.

        Which is what the article was about.

        Thanks once more for the comment.


      6. I will not be drawn into your hypothetical discussions of doomsday scenarios. Having said that, I have a few questions for you. Beyond passing a law, is there no way to stop your own 8-year-old from drinking alcohol? Is that what you’re hoping the law will do, is stop or curb the activity you disapprove of? Or do you want it to punish the criminals? Are these your kids you’re worried about, ie. you don’t have any confidence in your own parenting skills, or are you trying to exert control over everyone else’s kids? I’m not totally clear on these points.

        “Question: Who decides what is “unjustified” and what is the “truth?””

        Who decided that 2+2=4?

        You and I both accept that as an irrefutable logical fact. In addition, it’s a priori, so we would both look on someone with 2 pairs of apples counting them up to make sure they make 4 as insane.

        This is why I used the word “accept”, which you changed, for your own rhetorical purposes, into “decide”. The logic that offensive violence is a crime no matter who or what is responsible for it, no matter the circumstances, cannot be refuted. The statist merely descends into consequentialism, as you did. For example, “but then my child could be raped and nobody would do anything about it!”.

        There are consequences of libertarianism that I don’t like, for instance that I can’t force all of you religious quacks to stop abusing your children by teaching them about hell. But I must accept that consequence, just as I must accept that the 2 pairs of dollars in my pocket do not add up to $4 billion.

        I can tell you frankly that I don’t care one iota about the consequences of criminalizing all violence. I don’t care how society organizes itself afterwards. Some things would be better from my perspective, many things might be worse, but it doesn’t matter, because now the supreme crimes would actually be illegal in all circumstances, and that is the important thing — however it’s organized, you’re living in a just society.


      7. Brandon,

        Thank you for continuing the discussion via your comment.

        “I will not be drawn into your hypothetical discussions of doomsday scenarios.”

        One man’s ‘doomsday scenario’ is another man’s libertarian paradise.

        To be clear, let’s recap.

        Giving alcohol to 8-year-olds is already illegal. The discussion is whether it should remain illegal. I am saying it should be illegal. You are claiming it should be legal. Parenting skills, my preferences and the other points are not really relevant. I am perfectly fine with the status quo. It is the principled libertarian who thinks the law should be changed to his liking.

        Again, the article put forth the claim that libertarians are AOK with state using its lethal force as long as it is their preferences that are being enforced. If this is not so, the discussion is pretty much over.

        Thanks again for continuing the conversation.


  2. Politics is a strange business. I think it is better to leave it out of Christianity. Not mix it with the new kingdom that Christ brought. I vote like I pay taxes etc. Yes, I have heard all the reasoning that it is our duty as Christians to vote (always republican as he is the Christian and the democrat is always a type of anti-Christ) but I know better. Politics is Caesar. That’s all. AJC P.S. Yes, I vote.


  3. I just took the time to actually read the comments. We are not talking about politics here. There has to be laws to hold people who harm others accountable and stop them. I would trust my parenting skills if I had children but I don’t think I would trust people out there who want to harm them knowing they could get away with it. Laws aren’t perfect but as it stands, there is nothing else. Strange thing I have encountered lately – republicans who say they are really libertarians but finally had to move to republican party for various reasons but they ARE REALLY LIBERTARIANS. Then they start Obama bashing (the elected president by a system that is as good as it is going to get on this planet). AND they are all hyper patriotic. No big deal, don’t really care but is an unusual phenomenon. I am obviously not an intellectual as some who comment so some of my comments may seem a little unsophisticated. I apologize for this and hope I eventually get a more interesting life and will not be able to comment as much. I do really like what JJJ says but I can’t help but hope it was Bush senior he wanted to vote for and not Bush Jr. Partly joking. AJC


Love it? Hate it? Be biblical! We occasionally respond to biblical comments, questions and/or remarks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s