A Scientific Defense of Libertarianism

Libertarians should pride themselves as harboring the most consistent political philosophy.

How human rights came to exist is a centuries-old tale from the enlightenment writings of Kant to Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. The most recent, well-known defense of individualism was Soviet-escapee Ayn Rand’s theories on objectivism, which established the moral superiority of pursuing one’s own happiness.

Although I, as son of Soviet Jewish refugees, resonate with Rand’s life story, as a scientist, I have long taken issue with her epistemology. Rand’s arguments rest upon pure reason, while science, ever since Galileo dropped objects from the tower of Pisa to disprove Aristotle’s theories of gravity, has found that truth can only be determined through experimentation. Thus, since morals cannot be experimentally confirmed (at least in our day and age), they cannot exist with reasonable certainty, and Rand’s theories, along with those of all philosophers who preceded her, are pure speculation.

Such post-modernism, in and of itself, can be used to justify libertarianism: if there are no universal morals, then it is only fair that everyone have a chance to live life how they see fit as long as they do not impede others. However, this leap of logic is tenuous. If there is no good or bad, what is fairness? Is ‘fairness’ consensual or democratic? If so, could a majority of people choose to restrict the lives of a minority? Without hard morals, these questions are unanswerable, and libertarianism loses its self-perceived high ground.

As a medical student and cancer researcher, I was averse to accepting such uncertainty as an answer. It was only while staring at cells in the lab that I realized that the same process that had miraculously brought us into being could also thrust purpose upon us. Although morals cannot be tested and proven, science rests upon ‘theories,’ which are universal laws that have been experimentally confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.