Jump to content

Libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harry491 (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 30 March 2005 (→Libertarian economics: changed name. RJII is probably right.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article deals with libertarianism as often used in the United States and Canada. For a discussion of the term libertarian as often used in Europe, see libertarian socialism.

"Libertarian" and "libertarianism" also often refer to support for civil liberties; such supporters may be known as "civil libertarians," regardless of their positions on other issues.

For the use of the term "libertarianism" in the philosophy of free will see libertarianism (philosophy).

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that individuals have the right to complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. This is usually taken by libertarians to mean that no one can rightfully initiate coercion against the person or external property of another. "Coercion," to libertarians, refers to physical force, the threat of force and the use of fraud. Libertarians also believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as the individuals of which they are composed. As a result, they oppose governments imposing norms (aside from forbidding coercion) through force, even if acting based on a majority vote. Thus, they oppose all restrictions and penalties for what they consider to be victimless crimes.

In matters of economics, libertarians believe that capitalism is the only system that is consistent with the overarching principle of libertarianism. Libertarians believe that the nearly everything should be privately or corporately owned and operated, and that economic and financial decisions should be a private matter rather than preempted by a centralized governmental authority. To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to the police, which they believe will protect citizens from force by one another by way of enforcing property rights, the military, which protects citizens from perceived initiations of force originating from outside their society, and the courts, which check the police and arbitrate civil disputes. Thus, they oppose any taxation beyond that which they believe necessary to protect liberty, which may mean opposing all taxes.

While libertarianism's influence has grown in the past few decades, most libertarians see their ultimate political goals as very distant.

Terminology

The term libertarian was originally an alternative term for anarchism; this use is still common in Europe.

The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. Taken in another sense, it refers to a variant of anarchist socialism that became popular after the French Government suppressed the Paris Commune in 1871 and banned anarchism. At that point, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term for the same ideas that avoided the negative connotations of anarchy.

This usage spread to English, where critics of hierarchies are sometimes referred to as "libertarian." These groups are discussed in their own articles. For the most part, they choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, or anarcho-syndicalists, and may subscribe to certain forms of socialism called libertarian socialism. Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word "libertarian" is applied to these groups with a qualifier as in "left-libertarian" or "libertarian communist." The form of libertarianism discussed here is sometimes called "libertarian capitalism" or "right-wing libertarianism" to distinguish it from these other ideas.

A typographical convention

When Libertarian is capitalized rather then spelled a lowercase "l" it refers specifically to a member of a party that titles itself a "Libertarian Party," rather than referring to someone who favors the philosophy of libertarianism. This distinction is important because some libertarians do not align themselves with a "Libertarian Party," due to philosophical disagreements. Also, libertarians may be members of other parties, such as U.S. Congressman Ron Paul who is a Republican.

Libertarianism and classical liberalism

Main article: Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism

Libertarians see their origins in the tradition of classical liberalism, and often use the terms interchangeably. The founders of the U.S. were called "liberals" at the time, as they opposed the European restrictions on individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson is credited as saying that "the government that governs best, governs least," which shares a common flavor with libertarianism.

Some argue that the term classical liberalism should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy. They may also argue that there are important differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. For example, many modern libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, business, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which would form an important part of a libertarian society.

Regardless of the term's accuracy, it is widely used by libertarians to describe themselves. Advocacy of free markets, free trade, limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy and a libertarian conception of individual liberty unite the two philosophies.

Libertarianism in the modern political spectrum

While the traditional political spectrum is a line, the Nolan Chart turns it to a plane to accommodate libertarians and others.

Modern conservatives, liberals, and socialists often claim to promote liberty in different ways: libertarians argue that the conservatives tend to emphasize economic liberty, whereas the socialists or modern liberals emphasize civil liberties. Contrary to these views, libertarians suggest that economic liberty and other liberties are inseparable, and that civil rights are ultimately impossible without the right to property and free exchange.

Many libertarians do not identify themselves as either "right-wing" or "left-wing," and reject the ideology of both. In the US some conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan regard themselves as both conservative and libertarian, but other libertarians argue that the two conflict and that libertarianism is really a form of liberalism. One example is Hayek's Why I am Not a Conservative,[2].

Instead of a "left-right" spectrum, some libertarians use a two-dimensional space with "personal freedom" on one axis and "economic freedom" on the other called the Nolan Chart. David Nolan, the founder of the United States Libertarian Party, designed the chart.[3] Libertarians believe that their combination of economic and personal rights requires the fewest possible coercive limitations on free action, and maximizes individual liberty and autonomy.

The usefulness of the Nolan Chart is disputed by many. Some argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" is flawed because, in their view, "freedom of action" can be inhibited by powerlessness, not just coercion. Others argue that the chart is biased towards libertarianism and that criteria other than personal and economic liberty may be more important.[4]

Strains of libertarianism are evident in other political philosophies. For example, some modern conservatives might well prefer unfettered markets or free trade, while simultaneously prosecuting drug use or prostitution. Some socialists are strong advocates of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech or the right of homosexuals to marry, whereas, unlike libertarians, they believe that society has a right to expropriate property (e.g., wages or income) from individuals in order to provide for the welfare of the needy or in order to provide for certain public goods.

For more information, see main article: Nolan chart

Individualism, rights, property, and the role of government

Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas. Others tease libertarians for choosing "a big government statue" as the symbol of an anti-state movement[1].

Many libertarians hold that certain personal liberties (such as privacy and freedom of speech) and economic liberties (such as the freedom to trade, profit, labor, or invest) are both justifiable on the same philosophical or ethical foundations. On the other hand, many have no complex philosophical groundings for their espousal of libertarianism but simply like idea of having the kinds of freedoms that the ideology advocates. Libertarians contrast themselves with modern liberals, who believe that restrictions on economic liberty (usually regulations or taxes) are necessary for personal freedom or the proper functioning of society and social well-being, with conservatives that advocate restrictions on personal issues like sexuality, drug use, and speech, and with centrists who share some characteristics of both.

Libertarians often justify individual property on the basis of self-ownership or the right to life. The difference between the two arguments is little more than terminology, as some libertarians argue that the right to life includes self-ownership, and the rest argue that the right to self-ownership includes the right to life. The "right to life" version of the argument, from Ayn Rand’s essay ’Man’s Rights,’’ is outlined below. It should be noted that while influential in libertarian thought, Rand was not herself a libertarian (see "controversies," below).

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only means of implementation… Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

For libertarians, property rights protect one against others' attempts to obtain, damage or manipulate the legitimately obtained property of another, or the person himself or herself. Libertarians believe that capitalism is the only system that allows for these freedoms and protects property. Libertarians, like other capitalists, support the ability of each individual to acquire or produce as much property as they wish, even if this is more than what is necessary for survival or comfort and even as others live in poverty. In their view, all that matters is how the property was obtained--whether through production, trade, interest, or inheritance (in which case it is legitimate) or by theft (in which case it is not). Critics may argue that past theft or coercion may make many property rights taken for granted by libertarians invalid. Libertarians may concede that few existing property rights are "pure" if history is taken into account, but respond that it would be impossible to repair the damage without infringing on the rights of the property's current owners, who stole nothing. Critics are generally either unsatisfied by this response, or feel that it highlights a fundamental problem in property enforcement.

Critics, such as Noam Chomsky, contend that private property is itself a means of restricting the liberties of others, that property ownership is another form of authority, and that the state and corporations inevitably create alliances in order to oppress and control workers and stifle civil liberties. Libertarians counter that the kind of authority that inheres in property ownership is diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace. Libertarians see this decentralized authority as less dangerous than any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force. Libertarians contend that government power will inevitably act against the interests of most of society, notwithstanding the original good intentions.

Libertarians argue that rights rest originally in individuals and never in groups such as nations, races, religions, classes, or cultures, and distinguish between a wrong done to individual members of a group and the group itself. This position also undercuts rhetorical expressions such as, "The government has the right to ...", since under this formulation "the government" has no original rights but only those duties with which it has been lawfully entrusted under the citizens' rights. When democratic concerns and the libertarian view of individual liberty conflict, libertarians generally side with their view of rights. Libertarianism frequently dovetails neatly therefore with strict constructionism and the constitution in exile.

Libertarians call themselves "individualists," and oppose anything that they see as paternalistic. This is a source of criticism from some conservatives, who believe certain limits on freedom may be necessary for social reasons. Additionally, many non-libertarians accuse them of being dogmatic themselves. Lastly, at least one critic has called the Libertarian Party the "Party of Oxymoron" and jokingly suggested the slogan "Individualists unite!"

Defining "rights"

Main article: libertarian views of rights

Most rights-focused libertarians would argue that the only "rights" that should be established are variants of "the right to be left alone" (also called negative rights) According to Capitalism Magazine's online tour:

Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -- and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).
The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.[5]

This view has caused controversy, as many "positive rights" are now the status quo in the United States, especially in politically thorny areas like racial discrimination.

Opposition to statism

Libertarians believe that there is an extended domain of individual freedom defined by every individual's person and private property, and that no one, whether private citizen or government, may may violate this boundary unless if necessary to repel an initiation of force or coercion. Indeed, libertarians consider that no organization, including government, can have any right except those that are voluntarily delegated to it by its members -- which implies that these members must have had these rights to delegate them to begin with. Libertarians apply this philosophy to civil as well as economic matters.

According to libertarians, decisions regarding how individuals should spend or invest their money should not be affected by a centralized governmental authority, hence their support of capitalism and opposition to statism. Thus, according to libertarians, taxation and regulation are at best necessary evils (as they involve coercion), and where unnecessary are simply evil. They believe government spending and regulations should be reduced whenever possible, in favor of allowing individuals autonomy in regard to how they spend their money. To many libertarians, governments should not establish schools, run hospitals, regulate industry, commerce or agriculture, or run social welfare programs. However, as almost all libertarians assert that children should have some special protections and not be treated as adults, it is not uncommon for some to make an exception for things such as public schools on grounds of efficiency, fairness, or both, though most would prefer a school voucher sytem to the status quo. For libertarians, government's main imperative should be Laissez-faire -- "let (people) do (as they choose)"[6] -- a doctrine that opposes governmental interference in individual freedom of action, including opposing interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. And, they oppose all collusion between government and business to subvert "the free market." (see crony capitalism).

Minarchist libertarians believe that minimizing the amount of money citizens pay to government, results in minimizing the possibility of citizens being a position to require financial assistance from government.

To the extent that libertarians advocate any system of law, it tends to be common law, which they see as less arbitrary, more consistent, and more adaptable over time. Friedrich Hayek had some of the most developed ideas on what libertarian common law would be like, while Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett are three of the most influential modern thinkers in this area.

When discussing statism, libertarians like Fulton Huxtable often refer to or emulate Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's famous quote about government:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century)

It should be noted, however, that despite the overlap in terms of opposition to the state, Proudhon, like most anarchists, would strongly oppose libertarianism on the grounds that it leaves hierarchies intact or even strengthens them through private property. Proudhon himself coined the phrase "property is theft"

Libertarian economic views

Main Article: Libertarian economic views

Libertarians favor capitalism as being the only economic system compatible with libertarian principles. The Austrian School of economics and the Chicago School of economics are important foundations of modern libertarian economics. Libertarians contend that supply and demand, as ordered by the incidence of independent, subjective valuations in a free market, are the only sensible means of establishing prices, and that any attempt to objectify transactions by a centralized authority (eg. taxes or price fixing) will fail. Most economists agree that accurate pricing is an important part of efficient markets, and thus important for maximizing economic utility, but many argue that nonstate market failures would interfere with the functioning of a libertarian economy.

Because they oppose most taxation (some libertarians oppose all taxation), libertarians also oppose most programs funded by taxes, such as social welfare, arguing that government charity preempts private charity, that redistribution of wealth is theft, and that it keeps the poor from working, where they could help themselves. For example, libertarians, especially the Cato Institute have long supported Social Security privatization as a first step to dismantling Social Security[7].

Lastly, many libertarians support the gold standard as opposed to paper currency because they do not trust the government to interfere with monetary policy.

Disputes among libertarians

Libertarians do not agree on every topic. Although they share a common tradition of thinkers from centuries past to contemporary times, no thinker is considered a common authority whose opinions are universally accepted. Rather, they are generally considered a reference to compare one's opinions and arguments with. Jacob Levy, writing for the weblog The Volokh Conspiracy, writes that "there hasn't been any one libertarian organization that has the semi-authoritative position that National Review had for a couple of generations of conservatism-- or that, say, the Leonard Peikoff group has among orthodox Objectivists."[8]

Anarcho-capitalists and minarchists

File:Download la gold.jpg
The Libertatis Æquilibritas is a symbol of anarcho-capitalism. Many libertarians and Objectivists also use the dollar sign as a symbol.

All libertarians agree that government should be limited to what is strictly necessary, no more, no less. But there is no consensus among them about how much government is necessary. Hence, libertarians are further divided between the minarchists and the anarcho-capitalists, which are discussed at length in specific articles. Within the libertarian movement, anarcho-capitalists are often referred to as "anarchists" in order to distinguish them from minarchists. The use of this term follows from the anarcho-capitalist belief that the term "anarchism" can be used to refer to those who only reject one form of government. However, there is an anarchist tradition which pre-dates anarcho-capitalism and uses a more common definition, in which anarchism denotes rejection of all forms of authority. Under this formulation anarcho-capitalists are not considered anarchists because they support capitalism, which entails the support of hierarchies that traditional anarchists believe are coercive in nature and thus a form of authority that must be rejected.

The minarchists believe that a "minimal" or a "night-watchman" state is necessary to guarantee property rights, economic and civil liberties, and that the proper function of government is limited to that purpose. For them, the legitimate functions of government might include the maintenance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions (e.g., roads).

The anarcho-capitalists, believe that even in matters of justice and protection and particularly in such matters, action by competing private responsible individuals (freely organized in businesses, cooperatives, or organizations of their choice) is preferable to government serving in these functions. While they consider themselves to be anarchists, they insist in rejecting the connotations attached to this term regarding support of socialism. Anarchist critics of anarcho-capitalism also argue that capitalism must be upheld by the state, and that in the absence of state or state-like enforcement private property beyond possession would not be viable.

Minarchists consider anarcho-capitalists to be unrealistic to believe that governments can be wholly done without. Anarcho-capitalists consider that they are realists, and that minarchists are mistaken to believe that a state monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits. Liberal and conservative critics of both these positions generally point to the historical record of democratic governments as evidence that democracy and popular rule have succeeded not only in containing government abuse of freedom, but have in fact transformed the state from a violent master of the people into their loyal and peaceful servant, at least in certain areas.

With the exception of a few groups like the anarcho-capitalist writers for LewRockwell.com (see Political alliances and the role of culture, below), the minarchist/anarcho-capitalist division is generally friendly, and not generally a source of deep enmity, despite the sometimes involved theoretical arguments. Most libertarians feel more strongly about their common support for their conception of individual liberty, responsibility and property, than about their possible minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalist differences. Since both minarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe that existing governments are far too intrusive, the two factions seek change in almost exactly the same directions, at least in the short term.

Some libertarians don't take a position with regard to this division, and don't care about it. Indeed, many libertarians consider that governments exist and will exist in the foreseeable future, up to the end of their lives, so that their efforts are better spent fighting, containing and avoiding the action of governments than trying to figure out what life could or couldn't be like without them. In recent years libertarianism has attracted many "fellow travelers" who care little about such theoretical issues and merely wish to reduce the size, corruption, and intrusiveness of government.

Some libertarian philosophers argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction. See Revisiting Anarchism and Government by Tibor R. Machan.

Pragmatic consequentialism versus natural law

Libertarians can be broadly classified into two major categories: those who emphasize individual rights and those who emphasize economic efficiency. For those in the former group, such as Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, protecting rights is an end in itself. Though she rejects the label "libertarian," Ayn Rand advocated a similar but distinct form of rights-based natural law. These libertarians and Objectivists maintain that a person has the right to acquire property, use it, and exchange it freely, as long as he or she does so without violating moral principles, and, further, that people have a right to pursue their own ends, and they ought not to be forced to provide for the welfare of others. They believe that various end-state conceptions of what constitutes fair shares ought not to override an individual's entitlement to the property that he or she acquires in accordance with the principles of justice or morality. These arguments are primarily based on axiomatic reasoning, natural law, and rights.

Representatives of the latter group, such as Milton Friedman, contend that the unfettered, free marketplace is the most effective means of distributing the most social goods to the greatest number of people. This is a more pragmatic, consequentialist line of reasoning. Consequentialist libertarians favor protection of rights not because they consider rights to be sacred, but instead because, in their view, protecting rights produces a society which has good results, such as an increase in wealth, safety, happiness, and fairness. An exposition of consequentialist libertarianism appears in David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom, which includes a chapter describing an allegedly highly-libertarian culture that existed in Iceland around 800 AD.

Some (like Frederic Bastiat), claim a natural harmony between these two points of view (that both are different views of the same truth), and consider it irrelevant to try to establish one as truer.

Some libertarians do not attempt to justify their beliefs in any external sense; they support libertarianism because they desire the maximum degree of liberty possible within their own lives, and see libertarianism as the most effective political philosophy towards this end.

Political alliances and the role of culture

File:Murray Rothbard Smile.JPG
Murray Rothbard and his followers sometimes saw paleoconservatives as allies; most libertarians do not.

Many libertarians are political allies with liberals on social issues like the role of religion (which they wish to minimize, especially in government) and nontraditional lifestyles (which they generally support as an important part of liberty). Others, including Murray Rothbard's followers like Lew Rockwell, call themselves paleolibertarians, and consider the religious, isolationist paleoconservatives to be their natural allies, though the "paleos" differ shaprly on economic issues. Paleolibertarians accuse other libertarians (whom they call neolibertarians, but who call themselves either classical liberals or simply libertarians) of surrendering their most important values to the political left in order to gain political traction in Washington, and of undermining morality by opposing or denying religion[9]. Charlie Reese of LewRockwell.com said that "a society without an underlying private morality will degenerate into a corrupt jungle... I would rather live in a neighborhood of Islamic fundamentalists than in a neighborhood of atheists and agnostics... if we become an immoral people, we will eventually lose both our prosperity and our liberty."[10] Most other libertarians would disagree, arguing that secular morality is superior. Jacob Levy describes attacks by paleolibertarians on other libertarians as "constant, vitriolic, ad hominem, and vicious," and notes that it "often seems that such attacks are the bulk of" LewRockwell.com's activity.[11] Hayek's arguments in Why I am not a Conservative (above) preempted the paleolibertarian movement, arguing that, while libertarians (whom he called "liberals") could ally with conservatives in the short term, any fusion of the two movements would undermine their ability to defend liberty.

Both paleolibertarians their opponents would agree with this quote from Lord Acton, placed prominently at the top of Hayek's essay, though they would differ on its interpretation:

At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.

The main difference between the two groups is whether they see this dangerous corruption as coming from the socially liberal left, neoconservatism, and political comporomises or from the socially conservative right. Hayek's essay argues that alliances with conservatives are at best a necessary evil in the fight against socialism, noting that there are deep incompatibilities because "the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge."

The role of Objectivism

File:Ayn Rand Reason.jpg
The libertarian Reason Magazine dedicated an issue to Ayn Rand's influence one hundred years after her birth.

Main article: Libertarianism and Objectivism

Libertarianism and Objectivism have a complex relationship. Though they share many of the same political goals, Objectivists see libertarians as plagiarists of their ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them,"[12] whereas libertarians generally see Objectivists as dogmatic, unrealistic, and uncompromising. According to Reason editor Nick Gillespie in the magazine's March 2005 issue focusing on Objectivism's influence, Ayn Rand is "one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement... A century after her birth and more than a decade after her death, Rand remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture" in general and in libertarianism in particular. Still, he confesses that he is embarassed by his magazine's association with her ideas.[13] In the same issue, Cathy Young says that "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand’s ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild."[14]

Though they reject what they see as randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still concede that "Rand was the most successful and widely read popularizer of the ideas of individual liberty and the free market of her day. In the 21st century... Rand’s message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for a less dogmatic political movement with similar goals like libertarianism.

Ownership of natural resources

Main article: Libertarian perspectives on natural resources

Most libertarians agree that property held in common, so-called public property, is likely to be mismanaged, even wasted (see, for example, the Tragedy of the Commons); this is not an original argument, for Aristotle made similar observations over 2,000 years ago. Some libertarians (such as Free Market Environmentalists) want to avoid this problem through private ownership of all natural resources, while others (such as geolibertarians) believe that natural resources (especially land) cannot be considered property. Solutions such as homesteading have been studied by John Locke and Murray Rothbard, among others. This is a particularly important issue since many criticisms of private property rest on the notion that no person can claim rightful ownership over natural resources, and argue that therefore no person can claim rightful ownership over human-produced objects either. Most libertarians argue that taking an unowned object cannot possibly be wrong because there is no victim (finders keepers), but instead argue over whether that use of natural resources should be exclusive. Locke's proviso that there had to be "enough" natural resources for everyone has inspired considerable debate over the aquisition of property.

Other controversies among libertarians

These controversies are addressed in separate articles:

  • Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property: Some libertarians approach this from a natural law perspective and try to define objective property rights for ideas, while consequentialist libertarians try to use intellectual property rights for other goals such as maximizing innovation. Within each group, there are differences of opinion about the best solution.
  • Libertarian perspectives on immigration: Libertarians in general claim to support people's freedom of movement, but oppose trespassing, so natural law libertarians must decide which takes precedence on the immigration issue. Consequentialist libertarians may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy, rather than on a "right" to immigrate or a "right" to keep others out.
  • Libertarian perspectives on abortion: Libertarians uphold right to life as well as ownership of one's own body, so the abortion debate centers around whether the fetus is a person (and thus has its own rights) or a part of the mother's body (in which case it is subject to her wishes). A secondary controversy is the role of the state in regulating abortion, if it is in fact immoral.
  • Libertarian perspectives on the death penalty: Some libertarians support the death penalty on self-defense or retributive justice grounds. Others see it as an excessive abuse of state power.
  • Libertarian perspectives on foreign intervention: Most libertarians are suspicous of government intervention in the affairs of other countries. Others (such as those influenced by Objectivism) argue that intervention is justified whenever a foreign government is abusing the rights of its citizens, though critics argue that this standard would always justify the use of international force.
  • Libertarian perspectives on inheritance: Libertarians may disagree over what to do in absence of a will or contract in the event of death, and over posthumous property rights.

Criticism of libertarianism

Conservative criticism

Conservatives often argue that the state is needed to maintain social order and morality. They may argue that excessive personal freedoms encourage dangerous and irresponsible behaviour. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the drug war, and public education. Libertarians feel that the state has no business being involved in what they see as victimless crimes, but these conservatives view some of these same issues as threats to society. Some, such as the conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review consider libertarianism "a form of arrogant nihilism" that is both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like drug addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes that "You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do. The Boy Scouts don't throw a pocketknife to a kid and say, 'Knock yourself out, kid. I'll be back in a couple hours.' The cultural libertarians want to do precisely that... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact."[15]

Goldberg has also had repeated spats with Lew Rockwell and his followers (whom he calls "angry libertarians") over what they see as conservatism's concessions to socialism [16] and its support for the war in Iraq. He argues that modern conservatism incorporates the best features of libertarianism without its flaws through what he calls fusionism:

Hayek says that in the United States you can 'still' be a defender of liberty by defending long-standing institutions that were designed to preserve freedom. In other words, 'conservatives' in America are — or can be — classical liberals... traditionalist conservatives and free-market libertarians agree on about 85% of all public-policy issues... When [libertarians] try to break ranks entirely the most common result is that they throw a party to which nobody shows up.[17]

Liberal criticism

Many criticisms of libertarianism question the definition of "freedom" upheld by libertarians. For example, liberals and socialists sometimes argue that the economic practices defended by libertarians result in privileges for a wealthy elite, and that the poor are not truly free, even if no "negative rights" are infringed because they lack the power to act as they choose.

Some, such as John Rawls argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. Rawls argued that if rational people were unaware of their own prospects (operating under a hypothetical "veil of ignorance" or in the original position) they would choose to limit the risks of adversity, and that they would want society to provide a safety net for the least advantaged because of the possibility that they would need it themselves. Libertarians like Robert Nozick argue this cannot override an individual’s moral right to his or her life and its products (property).

Other critics argue that a democracy can legitimately override the rights of its own constituents. Hayek and Friedman both maintain that buyers making choices in the marketplace is democratic, and that the mechanism of the marketplace is noncoercive, so libertarian society would respect the economic will of the people. Libertarians see this decentralized authority as less dangerous than any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force. Libertarians contend that government power will inevitably act against the interests of most of society, notwithstanding the original good intentions.

Radical criticism

File:Noam Chomsky Harvard 4nov2002.jpg
Noam Chomsky, who argues from the libertarian socialist tradition, is a strong opponent of libertarian capitalist principles such as private property.

Some critiques center on the notion of property (on which much of libertarian theory rests) and argue that property in general is illegitimate. The argument that property itself is theft, promoted by many anarchists, would undermine almost all of capitalist libertarian theory if successfully argued. Noam Chomsky, for one, argues that property rights are authoritarian restrictions on others' actions. Others argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, justifying its redistribution. This is especially true in the United States where, they argue, land was initially stolen from the Native Americans that held it previously.

Classical Marxists and many modern socialists subscribe to the Lockean notion that production implies ownership, but argue that modern production makes it impossible to divide ownership of most goods amongst the individual laborers involved, for too many people participate in the complex process of extracting raw materials and in the manufacture of the end product (see labor theory of value). As such, they believe that property must be held in common for all, in trust, as it were, by the state. Moreover, they contend that the capitalist himself adds nothing to the equation in the way of labor, that which creates ownership, and that the profit or surplus value is therefore essentially unearned. Libertarians counter that this analysis ignores the complex labor of arranging for and managing production, and, most importantly, the various investment risks and lost opportunity costs that are involved in capitalizing the factors of production.

Libertarians contend that an agreement between laborers and employers to perform work is simply a contractual agreement of exchanging the use of one form of property (one's labor) for another (wages), and there is no particular need to tie production to ownership. Critics sometimes respond that neglecting to tie production to ownership often results in situations in which the producers (workers) do not receive the full benefit of their own labor, or that impoverished laborers cannot "voluntarily" make agreements with someone because the capitalist's control of the means of production is coercive. This last argument depends on the criticism of property, outlined above.

Economic criticism

Critics of the economic system favored by libertarians, laissez-faire capitalism, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifle innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that advances in economics since Adam Smith show that people's actions are not always rational, that markets do not always produce the most efficient outcome, and that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health.

Other economic criticism concerns the transition to a libertarian society. They may argue, for example, that privatizing Social Security would cause a fiscal crisis in the short term and damage individuals' economic stability in the long term.[18]

File:Apinochet.jpg
The economic agenda of the Pinochet regime was heavily influenced by libertarian economics.

Another criticism is of the handling of Latin American economies by libertarian economists:

"The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.
"The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses."[19]

Many libertarians disagree with this assessment, claiming that the "miracle of Chile" vindicated their theories.

Lastly, free trade has many critics, who argue that trade barriers are necessary for economic growth in some (or all) situations. Many economists, who tend to be in favor of international free trade, reject this argument. Many libertarians consider trade barriers such as import resrictions to be a form of "corporate welfare".

Methodological criticism

Many people criticize libertarianism (especially natural law libertarianism) for its heavy reliance on deductive reasoning, based on what they consider to be questionable premises, comparing it to a house of cards.

Libertarianism is also seen as utopian by some of its critics, with little relevance to the current political situation. The following example if from National Review's Jonah Goldberg:

Ask a libertarian (no, not all libertarians...) what the Department of Education should do, and he will say 'Well, the Department of Education shouldn't exist.' Now of course he's right... But it does. I've seen it. It's practically brimming with bureaucrats who aren't going away and they're awaiting orders from somebody to do something... I always compared libertarians to the Celtic warrior-tribes often employed by British kings. They are incredibly useful as allies in battle, but you wouldn't want them to actually run things.[20]

Others such as Jeffrey Friedman, editor of Critical Review magazine, argue that libertarianism relies on unproved assumptions such as that “economic growth and affluence” automatically result in happiness, and shift the burden of proof to their opponents without justification, when in fact "It is the libertarian who is committed to the grand claim that, for some reason, intervention must always be avoided." Friedman also argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: "if (as [David] Boaz maintains) the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual’s “right to do wrong.”" (warning: large PDF[21])

Lastly, some people criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas because they serve as a means of justifing and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies.


See also

Bibliography

  • Bennett, William J. The GOP's Race Problem, December 21, 2002
  • Chait, Jonathan. Blocking Move, The New Republic, March 21, 2005
  • Friedman, Jeffrey. What's Wrong With Libertarianism, 'Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 3. Summer 1997
  • Gillespie, Nick. Rand Redux," Reason Magazine, March 2005
  • Goldberg, Jonah. The Libertarian Lie, National Review Online, December 18, 2001
  • Hayek, F.A. Why I am not a Conservative, University of Chicago Press, 1960
  • Reese, Charley. Religion Essential, Ludwig von Mises Institute webpage, June 1, 2004
  • Rockwell, Lew. What I learned From Paleoism, Ludwig von Mises Institute webpage, May 2, 2002
  • Rothbard, Murray. The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, 1972
  • Young, Cathy. Ayn Rand at 100, Reason Magazine. March 2005

Libertarian political parties

In the United States

Outside the United States

Libertarian think tanks

Other libertarian political projects

Libertarian publications and websites

Critiques of libertarianism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=11674136"