Forget Conservatism: Embrace being a Genetic Freedom Mutant

Forget Conservatism: Embrace being a Genetic Freedom Mutant
Profile photo of Doug French

A frustrated Roger Toutant, writing for, believes libertarians should quit fighting for social freedoms and throw in with the conservatives.  Toutant claims “Libertarianism is, at its core, a fiscally and socially conservative movement.”

He then goes on to say “as far as I can tell,” most libertarians are conservative, so, enough with embracing gays, weed, and guns like the Canadian Libertarian Party does, because that’s an “absurd notion and complete rejection of true Libertarianism which is conservative in nature.” And besides, this notion of having freedom over your own body is a loser at the ballot box. “No wonder Libertarians attract about 1% of the vote come election time,” writes Toutant.

Indeed, this freedom thing doesn’t play well with voters, despite libertarians, also known as classical liberals, thinking the ideas of liberty being inherently logical. Walter Block explains, “In my view, economic liberty is unpopular due to biology. We are hardwired to be against it.” There was no advantage to liberty when people were living with caves. “I think most libertarians have some sort of genetic mutation that allows us to be open to this sort of thing.”

If Mr. Toutant wants to experience the feeling of winning on election night, instead of the satisfaction of being right, he should just be a conservative and get on with it.

Murray Rothbard, while having some sympathy for Mr. Toutant’s view, wrote, “I do not like the term ‘conservative,’ nor does any other libertarian.” Rothbard points out that conservatism “was essentially a reaction against all that liberalism stood for: in particular, individual freedom, and the economic freedom that produced capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.”         

If I understand him correctly, Toutant is fine with economic freedom but not so much with individual freedom.  Thus, he condones and supports the use of government violence to restrict people’s personal affairs and the use of their bodies. This is a line libertarians can’t cross, for votes, to make friends, or anything else.

If Mr. Toutant doesn’t believe me, perhaps he’ll be swayed by Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, who wrote in, For a New Liberty “The libertarian holds that it is not the business of the law—the use of retaliatory violence—to enforce anyone’s conception of morality. It is not the business of the law—even if this were practically possible, which is, of course, most unlikely—to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright. This is for each individual to decide for himself.”  

If believing in freedom is truly, as Mr. Toutant claims, to “languish in the doldrums until the end of time” there would be no Mises Canada website for him to post his views, not to mention the dozens of Mises Institutes and other freedom organizations around the world.

Embrace being a genetic freedom mutant. Keep up the principled fight knowing you’re making the world a little bit better.

  • Robert McFadzean

    I commented on Toutant’s post that as a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada, I think the criticism was deserved. I didn’t take Toutant to mean that libertarians should promote some form of morality. I thought he was saying that people of moral, religious persuasion are a larger and possibly more useful source for potential libertarians than the smaller groups who seem to be the targets. To target or focus on some groups gives the appearance of excluding other groups. Just as libertarianism does not have a moral code, it is not restricted to certain groups. Liberty is for everyone.

  • Patrick Barron

    Well said. Do not compromise your principles. It is the slippery slope to having none at all. For, if you are willing to compromise on one principle, why not others?

Profile photo of Doug French

Douglas E. French is a Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. Additionally, he writes for Casey Research and is the author of three books; Early Speculative Bubbles and Increases in the Supply of Money, The Failure of Common Knowledge, and Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Owenrship Myth. French is the former president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.

More in Blog

The true reason for the EU’s call to beef up financial regulation

Patrick BarronMarch 23, 2017

Deficit Spending for the Working Class Canadians

Caleb McMillanMarch 21, 2017

End Banks’ Exemption from Normal Commercial Law

Patrick BarronMarch 21, 2017

Allowing Failure Fixes the Housing Crisis

Doug FrenchMarch 20, 2017

Housing Bubble Consequences: Mega-Malls In the Middle of Nowhere

Caleb McMillanMarch 16, 2017

Canada Flagged for Recession by BIS

Caleb McMillanMarch 13, 2017

A Correction To Commenter Matt Damon

Giovanni BirindelliMarch 5, 2017

A Sensible Economic and Foreign Policy: Part II

Patrick BarronFebruary 23, 2017

A Sensible Economic and Foreign Policy: Part I

Patrick BarronFebruary 22, 2017