When we compare the different political families, points of convergence certainly emerge, but so do deep incompatibilities. This is especially visible when we set libertarians alongside other ideological profiles: conservatives, socialists, centrists. In this part of the course, we will explore a series of philosophical divergences that reveal the true fault lines running through political thought.

Let us begin with the most fundamental question: the nature of freedom itself.

To understand what separates libertarians from all other political families, we must start with a distinction introduced by one of the great French liberal thinkers. In his 1849 work Les Soirees de la rue Saint-Lazare, Gustave de Molinari, a disciple of Frederic Bastiat, stages a dialogue between three characters, each representing a political family: the socialist, the conservative, and the economist.

What Molinari demonstrates through these dialogues is striking. The economist stands in permanent disagreement with both the socialist and the conservative. He is the only one who defends freedom as a fundamental principle, one that is not subordinated to any other objective. The socialist wants to reform society according to progressive ideals; the conservative wants to preserve society in its current state. Both are willing to restrict freedoms and call on the state to impose their respective agendas.

Molinari's vision proved prophetic. Since his time, in the mid-nineteenth century, conservatives and socialists have alternated in power and carried out precisely what he described: the instrumentalization of freedom in service of political goals.

For conservatives, order and tradition take precedence over freedom. Too much freedom, they argue, generates chaos and social disorder. Freedom can be valued, but only once order has been firmly established.

In practice, this means that freedom must be limited and cannot be left to operate on its own. It becomes dangerous whenever it threatens social stability, the family, or inherited cultural values. The freedom to enterprise or to own property is defended, but always conditioned on respect for traditional values and duties toward the community. This implies a role for the state not only in societal matters, but also in the economic domain, where freedom must remain supervised.

For socialists, social justice comes before individual freedom. Freedom is understood not as independence from constraint, but as the capacity to act, a capacity that presupposes equitable material and social conditions.

In other words, one is not truly free if one lacks food or access to essential services. The political priority therefore falls on equalizing conditions. Freedom is intrinsically linked to social justice and equality; it manifests through emancipation from economic and social constraints such as poverty or exclusion. This logic regularly demands state intervention to guarantee social rights and redistribute wealth.

Centrists defend certain freedoms, but in an opportunistic and contextual manner, without applying any general principle of decision. They adapt their positions according to specific challenges and the compromises required for achieving results efficiently.

Consider, for example, the Green New Deal: centrists may push strongly for wind energy subsidies and support for green businesses, not out of principled commitment to freedom or even to ecology, but because such policies align with prevailing trends. This pragmatic approach reveals an instrumental conception of freedom that ultimately converges with the approaches of both conservatives and socialists. Freedom is always invoked, but always subordinated.

Libertarians define freedom as a general, unconditional principle of action and decision. It functions as an axiom from which everything else follows. Freedom must be posited at the outset as a fundamental right and, simultaneously, as a duty: the right not to be aggressed against, and the responsibility not to aggress against others, with restitution required in cases of fault.

Libertarians defend the integral protection of individual freedom and property rights, with a minimum of state intervention. They oppose constructivism (central planning), and regardless of where they fall on the libertarian spectrum, from classical liberals to anarcho-capitalists, they share the objective of privatizing everything that can be privatized.

Here lies a crucial nuance. Libertarians can agree with socialists, conservatives, and centrists on certain objectives: defending the oppressed, protecting civilization, promoting social cohesion. The disagreement is not about ends but about means.

Libertarians reject all coercive solutions that seek to uniformize practices, laws, and regulations. They oppose wealth redistribution, imposed minimum wages, and the growing weight of the state in the economy. As an alternative, they defend the power of choice and the principle of responsible freedom through the market process: free, decentralized exchange founded on voluntary contracts.