I’ve been reading a lot of social media commentary over the Zimmerman case and I’ve noticed something interesting from many claiming to be “libertarians.” If you ask them, most libertarians will claim to support individual rights and liberty. I’ve written extensively on my questioning of this assertion. I happen to believe that most people who call themselves libertarian are actually liberals who want to keep what they have rather than support the liberal socialist agenda of redistribution. If you read “libertarian” literature, you’ll find indirect support for this argument. The libertarian propensity to oppose the death penalty is one example. It has more in common with the liberal left than with true, Jeffersonian Liberalism. Well, the comments I have seen many self-professed libertarians making in regard to Zimmerman would seem to be yet another indication that my assumption about the average libertarian is correct.
What provoked me to write this post is the trend in this nation toward blaming the victim and defending the attacker. Now, I understand this where liberals are concerned. By their very nature, they do not understand personal responsibility. But when people who claim to support individual rights and liberty so much as to call themselves “libertarians” start attacking a man who broke no law and who acted perfectly within his rights, I have to wonder how well they understand the principles of liberty, themselves. If they believe in individual rights, where is the acknowledgment that Martin is the one who violated Zimmerman’s rights? Where is the libertarian defense of Zimmerman’s rights? Let’s review:
Zimmerman had as much right to be where he was as Martin did.
Zimmerman had as much right to follow Martin as Martin had to follow him.
Zimmerman had as much right to confront Martin as Martin had to confront him.
Zimmerman had NO right to detain or attack Martin, and he did neither.
Martin had no right to detain or attack Zimmerman, yet he did exactly that – attacked him.
Martin cannot claim self-defense because Zimmerman did not attack him. Yes, people will say we can’t know this because Martin can’t tell us what happened. But we have an autopsy report, and it does not mention defensive wounds or any other injuries other than the bullet wound. That means there is no evidence to support the claims that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first.
We also have evidence that supports Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was the one who attacked him. Zimmerman’s nose was broken, the back of his head had been wounded by being slammed into the cement, and a witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him in the head and upper body.
Now, here’s where things go sideways for our “libertarian” friends. When confronted with this, they are claiming it is still Zimmerman’s fault because he didn’t leave Martin to the police. Let’s examine that.
1 – You have a right to be on any public grounds you wish.
2 – You have a right to watch your neighborhood and protect your property.
3 – The Supreme Court of the United States has said the police do NOT have a duty to protect you ar your property. This means you do NOT have a right to police protection.
4 – This means you are responsible for protecting your rights.
5 – So, for a “libertarian” to claim they support individual rights and liberty, yet blame a man who was exercising his rights within the law to protect his property while defending a man who violated Zimmerman’s rights and broke the law is the epitome of liberal logic.
And that is why I suspect our libertarian friends haven’t gained the popular support of the American people, and why they likely never will: because, when push comes to shove, their true colors are that of greedy liberals.
Now, all that said, there ARE some who DO understand individual rights and liberty, such as Ron and Rand Paul. However, they are closer to Classic Liberals than they are “libertarians.” I am speaking about the majority of self-professed “libertarians,” most of whom do not know the distinction to which I just alluded.