Are Libertarians really “free”?

The Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank at George Mason University, put out their yearly ranking of the 50 states based on how “free” they are. I’m not sure whether to be pleased or dismayed with Virginia coming out as #9 because the methodology of “freedom” leaves a lot to be desired. For example, when calculating the paternalism of a particular state, automotive laws are taken into account. One would assume that basic safety laws would be neutral in the libertarian worldview.

However, the Mercatus Center says this:
“… seatbelt laws and sobriety checkpoints count as notable infringements on individual liberty”



I’m sorry, what? If I’m reading this correctly, and I think I am, the Libertarian would argue that I should be free to drive around drunk without my seatbelt on as long as I didn’t hurt others. If I did hurt others, then I would be responsible for the full extent of the injury.

I could see simple world where this makes sense–you are responsible and accountable for all your actions and only your actions. However, that world is not the real one. Your actions affect me. If you choose to drive drunk, I am affected by being on the same road as you. Or, if we both have insurance, my rate is higher because there are no checkpoints to prevent you from driving drunk so the insurance company must use my rates to cover your risk. Economists call this the “free rider” problem. You, drunk driver, are free riding on my responsible choices. Jerk.

The Libertarian is assuming that there is some mechanism that identifies drunk drivers/seat belt wearers which informs insurance companies so that we are charged appropriately for our individual behavior. But, wait, there is! It is sobriety checks and seatbelt laws!

Personally, I value the freedom to drive down the road with limited interactions with drunk drivers more than the freedom to drive down the road without the occasional sobriety check. And if you want to get into paternalism, why focus on seatbelt laws? Why not focus on efforts to restrict legal birth control and family planning aids? Or abortion*? Or don’t exempt breastfeeding in public from indecent exposure laws? Or conduct academic research without having the Attorney General subpoena your emails? Oh, because men wrote the report and don’t think about the issues surrounding us ladies.

*Abortion restrictions were evaluated for the Mercatus report, but were not part of the freedom calculation due to differing views on who deserves the freedom, the woman seeking the abortion or the fetus to be born.