When discussing politics in the United States, we hear a lot of false dichotomies.
We’re all supposed to fit into certain categories: left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. For specific issues, you’re supposed to be either abortion rights or anti-abortion; pro-gay marriage or pro-traditional marriage; for higher taxes on the wealthy or for lower taxes.
When I tell people I’m a Libertarian, many of them assume I’m socially liberal and fiscally conservative based on the established dichotomy of beliefs.
But the fact of the matter is many of my positions, like many other Libertarians, do not fit nicely into these categories.
A conservative like Paul Ryan might argue to create a voucher program to reform Medicare in an attempt to reduce its burden on the federal budget. For many on the left, support for this reform means Ryan and other Republicans hate poor people and the elderly and want them to suffer.
Despite scare tactics and hyperbole from many liberals, Ryan does likely favor keeping some type of government-sponsored social safety net for the least fortunate.
So when most Libertarians, such as myself, support abolishing programs like Medicare altogether, the responses are even worse.
Again, with support of this position, people develop a false dichotomy in their heads. If you support policy A, then you support the goals of policy A. If you oppose policy A, then you oppose the goals of policy A.
To continue with the Medicare example, if you support Medicare, then you support helping older people who might not be able to afford health care. Therefore, if you oppose Medicare, then you oppose helping the poor and the elderly to afford health care.
However, Libertarians do not oppose Medicare because we hate the people the program is trying to help or believe these people should suffer.
Instead, we oppose the policy because we believe the market through voluntary exchange and a more efficient allocation of resources can provide better and cheaper health care.
We also believe programs like Medicare distort people’s abilities to use prices to determine the best course of care, allow health care providers and insurers to abuse the system and create a culture of dependency among those who might not necessarily need the support.
Furthermore, we believe there are more choices than just having Medicare and not having Medicare. There is also private charity and other forms of support through voluntary exchanges.
Finally, many Libertarians have ethical issues with programs like Medicare. The program is built on forcing people to save for health care at an early age (through the FICA payroll tax) when they otherwise might not.
Although saving for retirement and health care might be a noble goal, the government should not have the right to hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to save. People should be allowed to make choices and suffer the consequences, whether they are positive or negative.
In a Libertarian society, or a society without a safety net, if someone tries to save for later in life but, because of bad luck and unforeseen circumstances, loses all of his or her savings, the Libertarian does not say, “Screw you!”
Just because you do not support a government program does not mean you lack compassion.
It means Libertarians support the creation of more voluntary associations to help people who fall on hard times rather than a government that inflates prices, rations services and forces citizens to spend their income in ways that a bunch of politicians believe they should.
Justin Hayes is pursuing a master’s degree in political communication. His column appears on Wednesdays. You can contact him via opinions@alligator.org.
