Neil deGrasse Tyson on Libertarianism

Neil deGrasse Tyson was recently on the Ben Shapiro Show, and each held their own, finding more common ground than you might think. It was really only until it came to the trans issue and biology of gender that they disagreed, though even then Neil seemed somewhat libertarian on the issue, stating that the only role of politicians is to keep us free. That prodded Ben to ask him why then isn’t he a libertarian.

Neil answered, “I’ve read a lot about libertarianism. There’s some fascinating strong points within it, but...too much of me wants to help others.”

This is where Neil completely misses the point about libertarianism. He simplistically strawmans the philosophy as, “I’ve got mine, you get yours.” That is not what libertarianism means. It is not dog-eat-dog, everyone for themselves—at least it need not be. Libertarianism makes you completely free to help other people with your time and money—as much as you want, exactly as you see fit. However, libertarianism does not force you to help other people with your time and money.

So really, Neil’s reason for not being a libertarian is not because he wants to help other people; it’s because he wants to force other people to help other people—as the government sees fit. That is the crux of the problem of libertarianism vs. statism: voluntary helping of others vs. helping others through coercive taxation at the threat of violence and/or prison.

If Neil truly believes government coercion is necessary to help others, then how about taking the scientific approach and studying the data of how these coercive government programs designed to help people have fared. (Spoiler alert: not well.) The programs designed to help people are often doing the opposite, yet they will continue to be funded through taxation regardless of their results. That's the difference between the government and the private sector: The private sector needs to be productive and spend their money wisely or they'll go bankrupt, while the government can squander money forever.

Libertarianism allows you to choose how best to help other people, rather than the government taking your money and deciding how to spend it for you. Never mind that only a fraction of your taxed money will go to helping people (much of it going to warfare), and that fraction will be spent on the programs the government wants, regardless of their efficiency and value.

The data indicates that people act based on incentives, but government welfare disincentivizes people to help themselves. As so many proverbs and parables have taught us, the best way to help others is to teach them to help themselves. “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Government welfare programs are the equivalent of handing out fish. As an educator and teacher, Neil should see the flaw in that. It’s like giving your students the answers to the test ahead of time. They pass, and you feel like you’ve helped, but they haven’t actually learned anything and will fail their next exam unless you give them the answers again.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a very intelligent man, likely far more intelligent than any politician. Yet he trusts politicians to decide how to spend his money better than he does? That is not very scientific. I’m sure Neil knows of some great local private-sector programs devoted to science and education that deserve his tax money more than the government. He either needs to read more about libertarianism or read more about how his tax dollars are and aren’t being spent to “help others.”