I’ve decided to take a bit of a break from the exam revision to briefly get off my chest something that’s been bugging me for quite a while. It’s something that I am no stranger to encountering, but it is important for us rational libertarians to acknowledge that the thing that is actually our biggest strength may also be our greatest weakness when placed on a national platform. Libertarianism is fundamentally rooted in the rights of individuals to go about their business as they please so long as their actions do not infringe upon the liberties of others. This focuses on the rights of an individual not to have their hard earned income taken from them by the state, and to generally go about their business without the state’s prying eye. The type of individualism that is the biggest selling point of libertarianism can, in some instances, be our biggest weakness. In this I mean that those who adopt more selfish points from which to base their arguments; “why should I help?” or “why should I pay for you?” risks tarnishing the point and purpose of libertarianism in that it is not about an individual putting themselves above others – with a callous disregard for human life – rather it is the right of individuals to make those choices regarding charity and their community, without the state using violence to make that choice for them.

As libertarians we would generally argue that government should be rolled back as much as possible, in the context of the UK that would lead to privatising health care and the end of the welfare state as we presently know it etc. Most libertarians (such as myself) would argue for such things as we see that a privately operated health care system meaning better quality, lower costs, with everyone seeing the benefits, and charity providing health care for the poorest. We would also argue that the current welfare state has bred a culture of entitlement and fecklessness, which has been detrimental to the productiveness of the British work force. We generally see the removal of the welfare state as encouraging a stronger work ethic, while charity would once again help those who were in a genuinely impossible situation and needed help.

One being no stranger to the news, we will be aware of the anger and frustration the public have against the current coalition government and its changes in the welfare system and the controversial Health and Social Care Bill. While most of us would not argue that these changes are bad, rather what has worked against the coalition government, and what would undoubtedly work against (if it were to ever happen) a libertarian government, is the appearance of being uncaring, or having a callous disregard for those at the bottom of the ladder, effectively failing to adequately “sell” the benefits of such changes. Throughout my time doing charity work, I have encountered those who have spent their lives on welfare, or are destined to spending the rest of their lives in such states because of some debilitating illnesses. Through meeting these people, their anti-privatisation/anti-small state mentality is not entirely the result of Labour party collectivist indoctrination, who will hate arguments for privatisation regardless, rather they are the product of a bloated state, and will see any efforts to roll back such a system as a direct attack on them, which as all libertarians know, is simply not the case.

Throughout discussions, I have encountered the phrase countless times of leaving it to those “who care” and it is a phrase I find myself repulsed by time and time again. Such arguments in favour of the rolling back of the welfare state and the privatisation of health care should not logically be based on the argument of “why should I pay for your health care/welfare?” are not helpful to those who actually want to see the furtherance of a libertarian society. Such arguments can be generally seen by those on the centre and the left as being callous or even cruel, which is why the arguments in favour of direct taxation are so easy for those who favour the big state to make. The general view of the left is that without the state we would have people “dying in the street” when any right-minded person knows that would simply not be the case.

The abolition of income tax could be the silver bullet with which the left could use to kill such an argument if it is not presented in the right way. At the risk of sounding like a manipulative salesman, if we are serious about our beliefs in the benefits of a libertarian society, we must firstly be aware of how the general public would view such arguments, and we must consider an effective way to sell the libertarian ideology to the general British public, even to those who would generally consider the big state to be preferable. While arguments of taxation being theft are a generally accepted libertarian principle, it is one that is frowned upon by those in the centre and to the left. One would expect such anti-taxation arguments to be countered by the left with arguments of “fairness” – whether it would be “fair” for a banker to get a £1million bonus, when there are people sleeping on the streets.

From a rhetorical point of view, arguments of fairness hold significant emotional weight, and I have no doubt that if the Labour party had a more eloquent and passionate leader, they would most certainly be a shoe-in for the 2015 election. On this basis, we must consider whether our well-considered philosophical arguments for liberty are capable of holding similar emotional clout so as to be persuasive enough to easily counter accusations of callous selfishness, and change the minds of some who have been convinced that the big state is the only option.