Difference between revisions of "Libertarianism"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 53: Line 53:
  
 
There is usually little room in between these two, but even then, there are still different branches within these umbrella terms. On the Minarchist side of the libertarian ideology, there are the Paleo-Libertarians, who advocate a strong return to the Constitution and are somewhat conservative in their arguments to preserve moral law, much like the Old Right Paleo-Conservatives. Ron Paul, who is often viewed as a Libertarian, would more fit the Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian framework, and not actual libertarianism. Additionally, there exist the Geo-Libertarians (who advocate simply a tax on fallow and unused land), Neo-Libertarians (often regarded not [[No True Scotsman|in any sense]] as libertarians, as their political views conflict with the very principles of the Non-Aggression Axiom), and other branches with their own nuances. On the Anarchist side of the spectrum, things tend to be more homogeneous, with the major disagreements usually only amounting to how to achieve a libertarian society and solutions to ethical dilemmas.
 
There is usually little room in between these two, but even then, there are still different branches within these umbrella terms. On the Minarchist side of the libertarian ideology, there are the Paleo-Libertarians, who advocate a strong return to the Constitution and are somewhat conservative in their arguments to preserve moral law, much like the Old Right Paleo-Conservatives. Ron Paul, who is often viewed as a Libertarian, would more fit the Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian framework, and not actual libertarianism. Additionally, there exist the Geo-Libertarians (who advocate simply a tax on fallow and unused land), Neo-Libertarians (often regarded not [[No True Scotsman|in any sense]] as libertarians, as their political views conflict with the very principles of the Non-Aggression Axiom), and other branches with their own nuances. On the Anarchist side of the spectrum, things tend to be more homogeneous, with the major disagreements usually only amounting to how to achieve a libertarian society and solutions to ethical dilemmas.
 +
 +
This ideological division occurs not only externally in political theory, but philosophically as well. On the one side, there are the deontological natural rights theorists (Murray Rothbard being the most prominent advocate), and on the other are the utilitarian libertarians (David D. Friedman is often the most associated with this view). A few minority nihilists and radical subjectivists exist within these circles, but these views are often seen to be in conflict with the general premises laid out by the Non-Aggression Axiom.
  
 
===Left libertarians===
 
===Left libertarians===
−
While traditionally considered on the right of the political spectrum, there are subgroups of libertarians who consider themselves left-libertarians. Like all groups, they are not exactly homogeneous. Issues that concern left-libertarians, whether anarchist, minarchist, or just for smaller government overall, often are focussed on less or areas of disagreement with the more common right-libertarians. As a note, both right and left as designations for libertarians and anarchists are not precise, as libertarians of both stripes tend to have more philosophical agreement, such as the non-aggression principle, than with the traditional left and right. This groups focus generally is considered to include:
+
While traditionally considered on the right of the political spectrum, there are subgroups of libertarians who consider themselves left-libertarians. Like all groups, they are not exactly homogeneous. Issues that concern left-libertarians, whether anarchist, minarchist, or just for smaller government overall, often are focused on less or areas of disagreement with the more common right-libertarians. As a note, both right and left as designations for libertarians and anarchists are not precise, as libertarians of both stripes tend to have more philosophical agreement, such as the non-aggression principle, than with the traditional left and right. This groups focus generally is considered to include:
  
 
*Protecting the environment (justified from a property or personal rights perspective)
 
*Protecting the environment (justified from a property or personal rights perspective)
Line 62: Line 64:
 
*Corporations (while often for business rights, as an extension of the owners rights, corporations are often seen as being given additional protection by the state that should not exist in a free market)
 
*Corporations (while often for business rights, as an extension of the owners rights, corporations are often seen as being given additional protection by the state that should not exist in a free market)
  
−
In addition, left-libertarians and anarchists may be more likely to prefer a communal or "socialist" style of living, as long as no one is forced into it, or to contribute to it. While most libertarians believe in helping others (but not being forced to, or forcing others to), left-libertarians are more likely to focus on it as of prime importance.
+
In addition, a smaller number of left-libertarians and anarchists may be more likely to prefer a communal or "socialist" style of living, as long as no one is forced into it, or to contribute to it. They object to large, national scale socialism, as most nations would not allow other individuals or groups to withdraw from the taxes and benefits, and as such this tends toward violation of the non-aggression principle. While most libertarians believe in helping others (but not being forced to, or forcing others to), left-libertarians of all sorts are more likely to focus on it as of prime importance.
−
 
 
−
This ideological division occurs not only externally in political theory, but philosophically as well. On the one side, there are the deontological natural rights theorists (Murray Rothbard being the most prominent advocate), and on the other are the utilitarian libertarians (David D. Friedman is often the most associated with this view). A few minority nihilists and radical subjectivists exist within these circles, but these views are often seen to be in conflict with the general premises laid out by the Non-Aggression Axiom.
 
  
 
Some cynical individuals might point out, in fact, that "left libertarians" have scarcely anything in common with "libertarians" at all.
 
Some cynical individuals might point out, in fact, that "left libertarians" have scarcely anything in common with "libertarians" at all.

Revision as of 01:44, 16 September 2008

Icon fun.svg For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is the antonym of "authoritarianism", but, in modern usage, is mainly used to refer to a largely American political and social philosophy that advocates freedom and self-ownership [1] for all people regardless of class or social station. It claims this freedom extends to all economic and social spheres and is limited only when it comes into conflict with the same rights of others. The US political party most aligned with libertarianism is the Libertarian Party, whose candidate obtained 0.32% of the popular vote in the in the 2004 Presidential elections.[2]

As it is a philosophy rather than a set of specific issues, libertarianism holds that freedom is good in itself - and then deduces from this the opinion that it also tends to bring about optimal financial prosperity and social/political peace.

Government, libertarians believe, is the biggest threat to freedom, because they think it tends to interfere in the lives of its citizens, and do much more harm than good.

Libertarians do not believe that people - individually or through their institutions of government - have the right to interfere through coercion in the affairs of others, and that extends to other nations. This is sometimes referred to as a non-interventionist foreign policy, or isolationism.

They are not pacifists, however - they strongly promote the concepts of individual responsibility and self-defense, and by extension, national defense. Just as other people who identify with certain political groups, libertarians have varying views on certain issues - although they agree on general principles. On the free marketplace, however, they are in general agreement, as they claim that that other liberties would probably not exist without it.

Their individual beliefs cover a range from minimal government to no government at all. Anarchists claim to be the true libertarians, and call the rest minarchists, because anarchists insist there must be zero government while run-of-the mill libertarians reject that in favor of minimal government.

The polar opposite of a libertarian society is a statist society, in which the citizenry delegates responsibilities such as public safety, social services, infrastructure construction and maintenance, and other such things to the governmental authorities. Statism and totalitarianism are not necessarily equivalent; while most totalitarian states are highly statist almost by definition, numerous examples (especially in Scandinavia) exist of highly statist societies that still have wide respect for personal freedoms.

Examples abound in the 20th century of societies that failed badly because of the policy of top-down control exercised by their government -- and of one that happens to account for over a fifth of the world's population, and has been generating close to double-digit economic growth for over a decade, ever since it gave up on such extremities of economic top-down control. The "free" world hopes that the trickle of economic freedoms afforded their people will result in some minimal political freedoms developing.[3]

Critical definition

There are many critics of libertarianism on both the left and the right.

They assert that libertarianism is a political position which holds that "the government which governs best is the government which governs least". Various branches of libertarianism are anarcho-capitalism (including agorism, voluntaryism, market anarchy), minarchism, constitutionalist, and moderates.

The non-aggression principle

This is referred to by many libertarians the "Non-Aggression Axiom". We will not use this terminology, because the principles are not as self-evident as they think.

Though various phrasings exist, this fundamental libertarian philosophy is often stated along the following lines: "You may do as you wish, as long as you do not initiate the use of force." This is said to be a very simple principle. We'll get to it.

Positions

Libertarians advocate extensive individual rights, specifically "negative rights" (which impose no obligations on other individuals as "positive rights" do). Libertarians advocate a society where "anything that's peaceful and voluntary" would be allowed so long as it does not infringe on anyone's life, liberty, or property, or engender force or fraud.

In the United States, they are closely associated with opposition to gun control, government surveillance, entitlements, and prohibitory drug policy. They also tend to be civil libertarians. While the United States Constitution, particularly the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights, supports extensive liberty, libertarians are rare in elected office. Cynics have suggested that refusal to provide adequate pork to their district hurts their chances in legislative elections - other cynics point out that if they don't win an election in the first place, how can their "porcine provision" skills be tested or judged? The narrow usage of "libertarian" as a label is also a cause, as some who takes "moderate libertarian" positions are frequently called a "free-market liberal/Democrat" or a "pro-____ rights conservative/Republican" - or even derisive epithets like "libt kiddies."

The simplest description of the stand of libertarians in the United States is that the government's only roles should be to:

  1. Defend the nation's borders.
  2. Provide a system for non-violent dispute adjudication between private parties.

Arguments against strict libertarianism

While a preference for maximal personal freedom is pretty much universal throughout most of the political spectrum (though less so on the fringes), libertarianism presents several difficulties:

  • Strict laissez-faire economics tend to favor established companies and oligopolies in a market, since there is no economic incentive to lower barriers to entry in an established market.
  • Strict interpretations of freedom to associate offer little incentive to remedy problems created by social stratification; in particular, the principle of "personal ownership" often leads to a blame-the-victim mentality (e.g. Rand's use of the term "parasite" to describe those dependent on public services).
  • A belief that national sovereignty trumps international responsibilities.
  • A belief that individual sovereignty trumps community responsibilities.

Like many other political positions, libertarianism is also subject to fundamentalist thinking; in libertarianism this can lead to both figurative and literal arms races (libertarians in the United States are often very anti-gun control), as well as an attraction to fringe groups such as the tax protester movement, and calling for a resumption of the gold standard.

Branches and disputes within libertarianism

While libertarians all generally agree on the premise of the Non-Aggression Axiom, there are internal rifts and disagreement over what extent the Non-Aggression Axiom applies to. On the one hand, there are the Libertarian Party types (colloquially called "Minarchists") who take a position of advocating minimal government, and on the other there are the Anarchist libertarians (typically referred to as simply "Anarchists", "Anarcho-Capitalists", or "Market Anarchists"; there is even debate on which is the more apt term for these people) who believe that all the services the government provides are unjust monopolies, which the free market can handle better if let go of by the State.

There is usually little room in between these two, but even then, there are still different branches within these umbrella terms. On the Minarchist side of the libertarian ideology, there are the Paleo-Libertarians, who advocate a strong return to the Constitution and are somewhat conservative in their arguments to preserve moral law, much like the Old Right Paleo-Conservatives. Ron Paul, who is often viewed as a Libertarian, would more fit the Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian framework, and not actual libertarianism. Additionally, there exist the Geo-Libertarians (who advocate simply a tax on fallow and unused land), Neo-Libertarians (often regarded not in any sense as libertarians, as their political views conflict with the very principles of the Non-Aggression Axiom), and other branches with their own nuances. On the Anarchist side of the spectrum, things tend to be more homogeneous, with the major disagreements usually only amounting to how to achieve a libertarian society and solutions to ethical dilemmas.

This ideological division occurs not only externally in political theory, but philosophically as well. On the one side, there are the deontological natural rights theorists (Murray Rothbard being the most prominent advocate), and on the other are the utilitarian libertarians (David D. Friedman is often the most associated with this view). A few minority nihilists and radical subjectivists exist within these circles, but these views are often seen to be in conflict with the general premises laid out by the Non-Aggression Axiom.

Left libertarians

While traditionally considered on the right of the political spectrum, there are subgroups of libertarians who consider themselves left-libertarians. Like all groups, they are not exactly homogeneous. Issues that concern left-libertarians, whether anarchist, minarchist, or just for smaller government overall, often are focused on less or areas of disagreement with the more common right-libertarians. As a note, both right and left as designations for libertarians and anarchists are not precise, as libertarians of both stripes tend to have more philosophical agreement, such as the non-aggression principle, than with the traditional left and right. This groups focus generally is considered to include:

  • Protecting the environment (justified from a property or personal rights perspective)
  • Animal welfare (justified from a weaker version of the human natural rights perspective)
  • Immigration (although popular with most libertarians, left-libertarians tend to focus on free immigration more often)
  • Corporations (while often for business rights, as an extension of the owners rights, corporations are often seen as being given additional protection by the state that should not exist in a free market)

In addition, a smaller number of left-libertarians and anarchists may be more likely to prefer a communal or "socialist" style of living, as long as no one is forced into it, or to contribute to it. They object to large, national scale socialism, as most nations would not allow other individuals or groups to withdraw from the taxes and benefits, and as such this tends toward violation of the non-aggression principle. While most libertarians believe in helping others (but not being forced to, or forcing others to), left-libertarians of all sorts are more likely to focus on it as of prime importance.

Some cynical individuals might point out, in fact, that "left libertarians" have scarcely anything in common with "libertarians" at all.

Quotes on libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that engenders much passionate feeling in both support and opposition. (Though with less than one percent of the popular vote, this passionate feeling is presumably limited to a rather small group.) This section relates a few of the pithier quotes on both sides of the debate.

Opposing

  • "A Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs." -- essayist Bob Black. [4]
  • "Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to 'Get Off My Property.' News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us." -- John Scalzi [5]
  • "He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means 'I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve.' It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help." -- Isaac Asimov on Robert Heinlein and libertarian ethics [6]
  • "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." -- Kim Stanley Robinson
  • "A libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid" -- Thom Hartmann [7]
  • "I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party." -- Ayn Rand[8]

Supporting

  • "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" -- wp:Frederic Bastiat[9]
  • "Legalize Freedom: Vote Libertarian!" --Slogan of the US Libertarian Party (this is a lie).[10]
  • "This country is a one-party country. Half of it is called Republican and half is called Democrat. It doesn't make any difference. All the really good ideas belong to the Libertarians." -- Hugh Downs, on the 20/20 TV show in 1997[11]
  • "I'd like to see government shrunk to the size so it can be drowned in a bathtub" -- Grover Norquist. [12]
  • "You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you're actually fighting for is only your property, isn't it?" — "Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know what kind of principle that represents?" -- Ayn Rand.[13]

Simple

It's SIMPLE, obviously.

Simple

No, really, it's so SIMPLE, it's obvious.

Simple

If you don't get how SIMPLE it is by now, you must be stupid

Simple

Really, all we need is three or four SIMPLE laws! That's enough to keep us from each others' throats - really! Trust me, I'm right!

In all seriousness...

Systems that attempt to boil themselves down to "a few simple rules" seldom are actually simple; for example, ancient Judaism's Deuteronomic reforms started out as just about half of the modern book of Deuteronomy, but eventually grew to encompass the whole Torah, large swaths of the rest of the Jewish Bible, [14] and ultimately to the vast body of commentary known as the Talmud. Esperanto, though defined in only sixteen grammatical rules, is actually quite a complex language, since its rules are defined in direct relation to established rules in Indo-European linguistics. Even some sports -- particularly golf -- have a strong element of common law in their rule systems.

There is essentially no guarantee that a society built on a libertarian legal structure would remain that way without redeveloping some sort of common law structure, or even a statutory structure that codifies all precedents. Given that most societies governed by rule of law already have this, it's hard to see what would be accomplished other than a massive reinvention of the wheel. [15]

The United States, for instance, is almost a true libertarian country, even today, since the only laws it has are to "adjudicate between free men". Starting with a base, at least at the federal level (after the collapse of the Articles of Confederation) of a fairly simple Constitution, and some Roman and English common law, the country's government has evolved as a balance between virtually total liberty, and adjudicating the inevitable conflicts that arise between free men (or, in the case of drug laws, sodomy laws, etc., between the government and one somewhat unfree man). This adjudication has taken the form both of legislation to deal with issues that arose, and judicial analysis of the application of such legislation. Of course, 240 years offers a lot of opportunity for "free men" to need adjudication, so now, to self-styled "libertarians", the results look needlessly complicated. Such is life in the real world.


Heroes

  • Bob Barr, 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for President. A former Republican and congressman, Barr left the Republican party in 2004, endorsing the Libertarian candidate.
  • Milton Friedman, an American Nobel Laureate, had a masterful grasp of libertarianism, especially in the area of economics. His book, "Free to Choose", probably the one most widely read, is an excellent treatment of the free marketplace. However, Friedman's economic theories did not play out so well when the Pinochet regime in Chile tried to put them to work; the loss of civil rights with Pinochet's ascension added a major variable to the situation, making a controlled analysis rather difficult. It has been noted, however, that Chile's return to democracy while keeping said principles in place has not led to an equal return to prosperity.
  • Ron Paul, a Christian libertarian, was a candidate for president on the Republican side in 2008, and managed, for the first time, to be included in televised debates. He was able to get much more TV airtime than any previous libertarian. Some libertarians consider him a paleoconservative. Many differ from his views on immigration and religious faith, and think that his federalism (not to mention his refusal to address allegations of racist connections) is a cop out.
  • John Stossel, of ABC NEWS fame, produces hour-long special programs that contrast the Libertarian approach to issues against a statist approach. One of them, "Sick in America", attempts to rebut Michaels Moore's "Sicko" film, and can still be seen on YouTube. His book, "Give Me a Break", tackles libertarian principles by presenting simple examples. Stossel's critics, however, believe he relies far too much on scoffing and not enough on hard evidence.
  • John Locke, whose philosophy and essays had a profound effect on Thomas Jefferson (ref: U.S. Declaration of Independence), and laid the basis of modern libertarianism. His theory of value and property was especially significant.
  • Ayn Rand, who preached Objectivism and denounced libertarianism, is nevertheless the author of several works that were influential in setting many a reader onto a libertarian path. She objected to those libertarians that supported removing age of consent laws. (It should be noted that some pedophiles pose as libertarians.[citation needed])
  • Neil Boortz, talk radio host and self-described libertarian

Associated organizations

The following institutions and groups are closely or loosely associated with modern libertarianism:

Not to be confused with

  • Librarianism, also a philosophy, but more about cataloging books and helping people find them, no matter what the book is about. Librarians also hate totalitarian regimes, as they tend to be real jerks when it comes to stocking unpopular or controversial books.

See also

External links

References and notes

  1. ↑ "Self ownership" means that it is against chattel slavery. In this it differs to ... well nobody really.
  2. ↑ Libertarian Party gets 0.32% of popular vote
  3. ↑ Hint: They hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics, and made most of the things you bought last year.
  4. ↑ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/libcon.html third sentence.
  5. ↑ I Hate Your Politics
  6. ↑ I. Asimov: A Memoir, 1994. Page number depends on edition, in the 1995 Bantam paperback edition it is on page 311
  7. ↑ This is a tougher quote to "prove": He says it on his radio show once every two or three weeks, but may not have committed himself to print.
  8. ↑ http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
  9. ↑ Ferederic Bastiat: The Law
  10. ↑ According to the internet, but the party website doesn't mention it. Their current slogan appears to be "Smaller Government * Lower Taxes * More Freedom".
  11. ↑ He had a point though
  12. ↑ The only reference I could find is this anti-libertarian blog, which also claims that Libertarians were repeating it even after Katarina.
  13. ↑ Atlas Shrugged: the Trial of Hank Rearden.
  14. ↑ Or at least the parts such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the bulk of Job, etc. that aren't prophecy, simple narrative, or worship music.
  15. ↑ And this, to a non-libertarian at least, is a best-case scenario. Libertarian theorists haven't successfully convinced their critics that an unregulated market won't lead to corporate oligarchy or even neo-feudalism, a scenario that already exists in some industrial areas and was famously lamented by Tennessee Ernie Ford in his hit protest song "Sixteen Tons".
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=227052"