American politicians like to stress how much they fight for “our liberties and freedoms.” Never mind that the terms “liberty” and “freedom” are synonyms. (The word “liberty” derives from Latin, the word “freedom” is rooted in the earliest Germanic roots of English.)
Classical liberalism began in the 18th century with the advocacy of free trade by Adam Smith in his book, The Wealth of Nations (1776). Similarly, French economists called for laissez faire, i.e., letting supply and demand determine the price of goods and services.
Traditionally a liberal was to be an advocate of individual freedom, politically and economically, and opposed to government intervention with property rights and to government controls in the market place in support of special interests, rich or poor. By the time of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, however, the advocates of government-sponsored welfare began to call themselves "liberals," rather than “socialists.” They claimed to liberate people from the risks of free enterprise and from economic deprivatio--by having government regulate the economy and legalize the redistribution of wealth
While the advocates of free enterprise in Europe and throughout the rest of the world consistently retained the label “liberal,” in the United States they began to stress their differences from welfare state liberals by calling themselves “libertarians.” Linguistically and historically, it would be less confusing if the advocates of the welfare state called themselves what they really are: socialists.
Libertarians hold that every human being is the owner of his/her own body and of his/her material property. Government does not have the right to restrict a man’s life and property unless permitted by laws duly passed by majority decision. Libertarians oppose conscription and taxpayer-funded subsidies because they believe that coercing someone to provide military service and charity is ultimately counter-productive.
It is the laws of liberal governments that tend to restrict individual freedom when they limit what people can or cannot do with their own bodies or their own property. Government following libertarian principles would not prohibit smoking in private restaurants, require seat belts in automobiles, helmets for motor cyclists, and government inspections or smoke detectors in private houses. Libertarian lawmakers would not forbid burning trash or storing junk in one’s own backyard. Libertarian lawmakers would not pass ordinances for building codes and mandatory weed control that are strictly the owner’s business. Libertarians do not tell people what they can and cannot eat, drink, inhale, or sniff. Libertarians would permit people to buy whatever medicines or medical procedures they can get, and where and when they can get them with the property owner’s consent.
The list of limitations of individuals’ lives and properties legislated under the U.S. Constitution is long and worrisome, indeed. Regrettably, however, libertarians tend to forget how much it costs the community at large if people abuse their freedoms. If smoking causes cancer, will the smokers then be willing to assume the full cost of the damage they cause to themselves and others? If motorcyclists without helmet protection suffer paralyzing injuries, will they then decline in advance to have their life-long care financed by society’s taxpayers?
What do radical libertarians propose to do when their neighbors’ air pollution, rodents, weeds, and run-down properties severely reduce the
value of their own residences? Whether the victims move elsewhere or seek compensation in court, they are legally entitled to be free from suffering the damage done by inconsiderate neighbors.
Milton Friedman, the libertarians’ most thoughtful voice, knew that no government can function if it ignores the plight of the everpresent losers of all kinds, the handicapped, and the unemployables that cannot subsist without public aid. For that reason, Freedman’s libertarian creed refrained from utopian demands but asked for "the least intrusive government consistent with the maximum freedom for each individual, as long as he does not interfere with individuals pursuing their own freedom."