7,668
edits
Libertarianism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
small amount of cleanup. Much more needed
m (added tags and categorization) |
(small amount of cleanup. Much more needed) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Cleanup}} | {{Cleanup}} | ||
'''Libertarianism''' is a [[political philosophy]] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their [[individual rights|person]] or [[property rights|property]], as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another [[individual rights|person]] or his [[property rights|property]], or the commission of [[fraud]], is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard ''all'' initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom. Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the [[welfare state]], because they believe ''forcing'' someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. | '''Libertarianism''' is a [[political philosophy]] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their [[individual rights|person]] or [[property rights|property]], as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another [[individual rights|person]] or his [[property rights|property]], or the commission of [[fraud]], is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard ''all'' initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom. Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the [[welfare state]], because they believe ''forcing'' someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. | ||
| Line 114: | Line 111: | ||
[[Image:2d_political_spectrum.png|thumb|While the traditional political spectrum is a line, the [[Nolan chart]] turns it to a plane to situate libertarianism in a wider gamut of political thought.]]The related case of discrimination in the workplace is perhaps even more illuminating. Here, liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, conservatives would typically allow such discrimination, but libertarians could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter because these would infringe on the property rights of both the business owner and the justly-hired employees. In other words, even if a particular libertarian feels strongly that various groups being discriminated against should have equality, he would say that intervening to establish this equality should not be the role of the government, but that of society. If a business discriminates against you, you are free to work elsewhere, or possibly start your own business which follows your personal belief structure, or lead a boycott or publicity campaign against the business. The libertarian's ability to distinguish between equality and freedom in this instance demonstrates their belief that equality of position is not a necessary condition of freedom, especially the freedom to enter into agreements in an un-coerced manner. By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights. | [[Image:2d_political_spectrum.png|thumb|While the traditional political spectrum is a line, the [[Nolan chart]] turns it to a plane to situate libertarianism in a wider gamut of political thought.]]The related case of discrimination in the workplace is perhaps even more illuminating. Here, liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, conservatives would typically allow such discrimination, but libertarians could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter because these would infringe on the property rights of both the business owner and the justly-hired employees. In other words, even if a particular libertarian feels strongly that various groups being discriminated against should have equality, he would say that intervening to establish this equality should not be the role of the government, but that of society. If a business discriminates against you, you are free to work elsewhere, or possibly start your own business which follows your personal belief structure, or lead a boycott or publicity campaign against the business. The libertarian's ability to distinguish between equality and freedom in this instance demonstrates their belief that equality of position is not a necessary condition of freedom, especially the freedom to enter into agreements in an un-coerced manner. By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights. | ||
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, which is called the [[Nolan chart]]. Named after [[ | 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, which is called the [[Nolan chart]]. Named after [[David Nolan]], who designed the chart and also founded the [[Libertarian Party (United States)|United States Libertarian Party]], the chart is similar to a socio-political test used to place individuals by the [[Advocates for Self Government]]. A first approximation of libertarian politics (derived from these charts) is that they agree with liberals on social issues and with conservatives on economic issues. Thus, the traditional linear scale of governmental philosophy could be represented inside the chart stretching from the upper left corner to the lower right, while the degree of state control is represented linearly from the lower left to the upper right. (See below for criticism of this chart and its use.) | ||
== The libertarian movement == | == The libertarian movement == | ||
[[The Libertarian Program]] is an international project to define and document key current and potential voluntary replacements of government programs. | [[The Libertarian Program]] is an international project to define and document key current and potential voluntary replacements of government programs. | ||
Some, such as [[David Boaz]], executive vice president of the libertarian U.S | Some, such as [[David Boaz]], executive vice president of the libertarian U.S think tank, the [[Cato Institute]], argue that the term ''classical liberalism'' should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy, and because of differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. Nevertheless, the Cato Institute's official stance is that classical liberalism and libertarianism are synonymous; they prefer the term "liberal" to describe themselves, but choose not to use it because of its confusing connotation in some English-speaking countries (most self-described liberals prefer a [[mixed economy]] rather than a free market economy). The Cato Institute dislikes adding "classical" because, in their view, "the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy". Thus, they finally settle on "libertarian", as it avoids backward implications and confused definitions. | ||
Libertarians and their allies are not a homogeneous group, but have collaborated to form [[think tank]]s, | Libertarians and their allies are not a homogeneous group, but have collaborated to form [[think tank]]s, political parties, and other projects. For example, Austrian School economist [[Murray Rothbard]] co-founded the [[John Randolph Club]], the [[Center for Libertarian Studies]], and the [[Cato Institute]] to support an independent libertarian movement, and joined [[David Nolan]] in founding the [[United States Libertarian Party]] in 1971. (Rothbard ceased activity with the Libertarian Party in 1985 and some of his followers like [[Lew Rockwell]] are hostile to the group.) In the U.S. today, some libertarians support the Libertarian Party, some support no party, and some attempt to work within more powerful parties despite their differences. The [[Republican Liberty Caucus]] (a wing of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]) promotes libertarian views. A similar organization, the [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]], exists within the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]], but is less organized. Republican Congressman [[Ron Paul]] is also a member of the Libertarian Party and was once its presidential candidate. | ||
[[Image:Movimiento Libertario Logo.gif|left|frame|The [[Movimiento Libertario]] is one of the most successful libertarian political parties in the world.]][[Costa Rica]]'s [[Movimiento Libertario]] (Libertarian Movement) is a prominent, non-U.S. libertarian party which holds roughly 10% of the seats in Costa Rica's national assembly (legislature). The Movimiento Libertario is considered the first libertarian organization to achieve substantial electoral success at the national level, though not without controversy. For example, Rigoberto Stewart, co-founder of the party and founder of "The Limón REAL Project" [http://www.limonreal.com] for autonomy in a province in Costa Rica, and director of INLAP[http://www.inlap.org/en/], a libertarian think tank, lost his influence within Movimiento Libertario and support for "The Limón REAL Project". As perhaps explained by [[Public Choice Theory]], while accepting money from the [[Friedrich Naumann Foundation]], a [[Germany|German]] liberal foundation, the party compromised on their libertarian principles in return for more power, turning to anti-libertarian positions. [http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/archives/00000384.html] | [[Image:Movimiento Libertario Logo.gif|left|frame|The [[Movimiento Libertario]] is one of the most successful libertarian political parties in the world.]][[Costa Rica]]'s [[Movimiento Libertario]] (Libertarian Movement) is a prominent, non-U.S. libertarian party which holds roughly 10% of the seats in Costa Rica's national assembly (legislature). The Movimiento Libertario is considered the first libertarian organization to achieve substantial electoral success at the national level, though not without controversy. For example, Rigoberto Stewart, co-founder of the party and founder of "The Limón REAL Project" [http://www.limonreal.com] for autonomy in a province in Costa Rica, and director of INLAP[http://www.inlap.org/en/], a libertarian think tank, lost his influence within Movimiento Libertario and support for "The Limón REAL Project". As perhaps explained by [[Public Choice Theory]], while accepting money from the [[Friedrich Naumann Foundation]], a [[Germany|German]] liberal foundation, the party compromised on their libertarian principles in return for more power, turning to anti-libertarian positions. [http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/archives/00000384.html] | ||
| Line 163: | Line 160: | ||
== Criticism of libertarianism == | == Criticism of libertarianism == | ||
Critics of libertarianism from both the [[left-wing politics|left]] and the [[right-wing politics|right]] claim that libertarian ideas about individual economic and social freedom are contradictory, untenable or undesirable. Critics from the left tend to focus on the economic consequences, claiming that perfectly [[free markets]], or [[laissez-faire]] [[capitalism]], undermines individual freedom for many people by creating [[social inequality]], [[poverty]], and lack of accountability for the most powerful. Criticism of libertarianism from the right tends to focus on issues of [[tradition]] and personal morality, claiming that the extensive personal freedoms promoted by libertarians encourage unhealthy and immoral behavior and undermine religion. Libertarians mindful of such criticisms claim that personal responsibility, private [[charities|charity]], and the voluntary exchange of goods and ideas are all consistent manifestations of an [[individualism|individualistic]] approach to liberty, and provide both a more effective and more ethical way to prosperity and peaceful coexistence. They often argue that in a truly capitalistic society, even the poorest would end up better off as a result of faster overall economic growth - which they believe likely to occur with lower taxes and less regulation. | |||
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 behavior resulting in externalities indirectly paid for by the collective society. If negative behaviors adversely affect society, then taxation can help to relieve this market failure with a new allocation of resources. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are [[sexual norm]]s, the [[Prohibition (drugs)|drug war]], and [[public education]]. 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 [[heroin]] addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes: "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... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact." However, Libertarians do not advocate "absolute freedom," but insist that the freedom of action of each individual should be limited at the point where it would infringe on the freedom of others; also, it is very unusual for libertarians to advocate that children have the same liberty as adults. | 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 behavior resulting in externalities indirectly paid for by the collective society. If negative behaviors adversely affect society, then taxation can help to relieve this market failure with a new allocation of resources. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are [[sexual norm]]s, the [[Prohibition (drugs)|drug war]], and [[public education]]. 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 [[heroin]] addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes: "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... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact." However, Libertarians do not advocate "absolute freedom," but insist that the freedom of action of each individual should be limited at the point where it would infringe on the freedom of others; also, it is very unusual for libertarians to advocate that children have the same liberty as adults. | ||
Furthermore, libertarians are strong critics of illegitimacy and welfare; and advocates a disciplined and value-based approached to raising children, centered largely around the necessity of a father-figure/male role model, in addition to a female role model, during a child's upbringing. | Furthermore, libertarians are strong critics of illegitimacy and welfare; and advocates a disciplined and value-based approached to raising children, centered largely around the necessity of a father-figure/male role model, in addition to a female role model, during a child's upbringing. | ||
Some liberals, such as | Some liberals, such as John Rawls and Ernest Partridge, argue that implied social contracts and democracy justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can function only among "a well-knit community of citizens" that rests on social obligations that libertarians reject. These critics argue that without this foundation, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition. | ||
Other criticism focuses on economics. Critics argue that where libertarian economic theory (neo-classical and laissez-faire capitalism) has been implemented (as in [[Chile]], 19th-century Britain, and 19th- and 20th-century U.S.), the results show that libertarian economic ideas threaten freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth. It ignores real market failures such as the human propensity for opportunistic behavior. In addition, some critics claim that libertarianism's [[anti-statism]] would eliminate some essential services. A frequently cited example is [[health care]]; critics argue that a lack of medical knowledge among consumers, and what they believe to be a moral requirement of society to provide service for those who cannot pay, make sufficient health care impossible in a completely free market. These critics claim that a nationalized health care system provides better outcomes than does the market, and that health care, contrary to libertarian positions, is a [[public good]] justifying coercion. | Other criticism focuses on economics. Critics argue that where libertarian economic theory (neo-classical and laissez-faire capitalism) has been implemented (as in [[Chile]], 19th-century Britain, and 19th- and 20th-century U.S.), the results show that libertarian economic ideas threaten freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth. It ignores real market failures such as the human propensity for opportunistic behavior. In addition, some critics claim that libertarianism's [[anti-statism]] would eliminate some essential services. A frequently cited example is [[health care]]; critics argue that a lack of medical knowledge among consumers, and what they believe to be a moral requirement of society to provide service for those who cannot pay, make sufficient health care impossible in a completely free market. These critics claim that a nationalized health care system provides better outcomes than does the market, and that health care, contrary to libertarian positions, is a [[public good]] justifying coercion. | ||
| Line 177: | Line 173: | ||
Other critics, such as [[Jeffrey Friedman]], editor of the journal ''Critical Review'', argue that libertarians oversimplify issues such as the efficacy of state intervention, shifting the [[burden of proof]] to their opponents without justification. Friedman also argues that libertarian views on human nature consist more of "ideology and political crusading" than "scholarship," as when he claims that libertarians assume that people act to maximize their own utility or that their self-interested actions will always serve human needs better than government. J. C. Lester has replied to Friedman arguing that Friedman is a justificationist who misunderstands the libertarian conception of liberty. He also embraces ''a priori'' anti-libertarianism with an anti-libertarian straddle: he wants to cite evidence against libertarianism but can always fall back on its lack of 'justification' and its supposed conceptual unclarity.[http://www.la-articles.org.uk/wwwl.pdf] Lester also deals in more detail in his ''Escape from Leviathan'' with many of the issues Friedman raises. | Other critics, such as [[Jeffrey Friedman]], editor of the journal ''Critical Review'', argue that libertarians oversimplify issues such as the efficacy of state intervention, shifting the [[burden of proof]] to their opponents without justification. Friedman also argues that libertarian views on human nature consist more of "ideology and political crusading" than "scholarship," as when he claims that libertarians assume that people act to maximize their own utility or that their self-interested actions will always serve human needs better than government. J. C. Lester has replied to Friedman arguing that Friedman is a justificationist who misunderstands the libertarian conception of liberty. He also embraces ''a priori'' anti-libertarianism with an anti-libertarian straddle: he wants to cite evidence against libertarianism but can always fall back on its lack of 'justification' and its supposed conceptual unclarity.[http://www.la-articles.org.uk/wwwl.pdf] Lester also deals in more detail in his ''Escape from Leviathan'' with many of the issues Friedman raises. | ||
Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they support libertarian ideas only because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing | Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they support libertarian ideas only because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. For instance, ''Wired'' columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy". | ||
These critics contend that the support of WTO efforts by libertarians demonstrates that libertarians are satisfied with the global status quo and would like to "lock-in" the hegemonic advantages. Likewise, they say that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. [[Thomas Jefferson]] in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society. Some libertarians, however, deny the legitimacy of corporations as being government constructs. | These critics contend that the support of WTO efforts by libertarians demonstrates that libertarians are satisfied with the global status quo and would like to "lock-in" the hegemonic advantages. Likewise, they say that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. [[Thomas Jefferson]] in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society. Some libertarians, however, deny the legitimacy of corporations as being government constructs. | ||
| Line 185: | Line 181: | ||
Some critics see the libertarian view of property rights as a threat to the environment, rather than a cure. They also claim that many aspects of the environment, such as scenic beauty, are extremely hard to valuate. | Some critics see the libertarian view of property rights as a threat to the environment, rather than a cure. They also claim that many aspects of the environment, such as scenic beauty, are extremely hard to valuate. | ||
Some critics claim that libertarianism would enable slavery per the self-ownership property right, repeal of labor laws, via contractual labor agreements, outright sale of future labor rights, and/or as a punishment for a person with unpaid debts as an [[indentured servant]]. There are even internal debates within libertarian camps as to the libertarian justification for contractual slavery [http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm] and indentured labor [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/verhaegh2.html][http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro2.asp][[Rothbard]]. The new libertarian rejoinder is that one's body, as Thomas Jefferson said of ideas, is not the subject of property, so slavery is de facto illegal, as is [[false imprisonment]]. This view parallels the long-standing common law principle that rights are unalienable, a condition that could not be satisfied if rights were treated as [[personal property]] (in the legal sense) and | Some critics claim that libertarianism would enable slavery per the self-ownership property right, repeal of labor laws, via contractual labor agreements, outright sale of future labor rights, and/or as a punishment for a person with unpaid debts as an [[indentured servant]]. There are even internal debates within libertarian camps as to the libertarian justification for contractual slavery [http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm] and indentured labor [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/verhaegh2.html][http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro2.asp][[Rothbard]]. The new libertarian rejoinder is that one's body, as Thomas Jefferson said of ideas, is not the subject of property, so slavery is de facto illegal, as is [[false imprisonment]]. This view parallels the long-standing common law principle that rights are unalienable, a condition that could not be satisfied if rights were treated as [[personal property]] (in the legal sense) and tradeable commodities, even though this is not in any official libertarian platform, and the issue of voluntary servitude contracts are still debated within the libertarian ranks. However, Libertarians have continuously stated that the limits of individual freedom are reached when those freedoms interfere with another's right to the same freedoms. As such, ownership of property would not extend to ownership of slaves as this would be a clear example of one's rights (to property) interfering with another's rights. | ||
Some critics point out that libertarianism is untried, and that the benefits it claims it would produce have not been put to the test. Libertarians make a similar point that criticisms of libertarianism fall into the same category as Libertarianism is untried. Others would maintain that libertarianism is inherently unworkable in the real world, because, human nature being what it is, whatever organization was strong enough to enforce contracts and prohibit fraud would seize power and become a de facto government. To counter this Libertarians would argue that a truly free market is always open to entry of entrepreneurs, creating a highly competitive economy making domination by a sole organization extremely difficult. | Some critics point out that libertarianism is untried, and that the benefits it claims it would produce have not been put to the test. Libertarians make a similar point that criticisms of libertarianism fall into the same category as Libertarianism is untried. Others would maintain that libertarianism is inherently unworkable in the real world, because, human nature being what it is, whatever organization was strong enough to enforce contracts and prohibit fraud would seize power and become a de facto government. To counter this Libertarians would argue that a truly free market is always open to entry of entrepreneurs, creating a highly competitive economy making domination by a sole organization extremely difficult. | ||
Critics of Libertarianism are also frequently seen as those who believe that circumstance, not the individual, are responsible for any actions an individual might take. Libertarians do not accept this viewpoint because an individual makes the final decision to act and is not 'forced' to act against his/her will by circumstance. This view also ignores the fact that an individual can make positive decisions to improve their lives (such as education and an increased awareness of the rights of others etc.) rather than 'negative' decisions which lead to continued poverty, | Critics of Libertarianism are also frequently seen as those who believe that circumstance, not the individual, are responsible for any actions an individual might take. Libertarians do not accept this viewpoint because an individual makes the final decision to act and is not 'forced' to act against his/her will by circumstance. This view also ignores the fact that an individual can make positive decisions to improve their lives (such as education and an increased awareness of the rights of others etc.) rather than 'negative' decisions which lead to continued poverty, despondent attitudes, and frequently vandalism, violence and other forms of crime. These positive decisions can, for example, free succeeding generations from the poverty trap as opposed to State support or 'handouts' which Libertarians hold as a major disincentive to self-improvement and fosters the so-called 'scab' culture or 'benefit fraud' prevalent in many Western social welfare systems, where individuals are supported comfortably by the State despite being in good health and of able mind. This then tends to create resentment among the general population who earn their own livings, and are given none of the State support the 'scabs' abuse. | ||
Libertarians also point out that so-called 'liberal' systems frequently contradict their belief sets by selectively choosing acceptable | Libertarians also point out that so-called 'liberal' systems frequently contradict their belief sets by selectively choosing acceptable behaviors or activities as their own (or public) opinion changes, for example advocating gun control laws to restrict ownership of firearms due to extremely rare (in relative terms) highly publicized individual actions, whilst ignoring the root causes of these actions such as mental illness, depression, bullying or victimization. Libertarians argue that if this were applied equally to everyday life, then the use of automobiles, alcohol, tobacco etc. by millions of responsible people would also be restricted due to the actions of a very small number of others acting irresponsibly. Libertarians propose that such decisions should made on the basis of rational arguments and debate rather than media hype or sensation. An often-cited example of this occurred in the UK in 1997 when a handgun ban was introduced following the the Dunblane school shooting by a suspected pedophile. The case was exploited by politicians and the media in subsequent. Over 65,000 law-abiding handgun owners and sportsmen/women were then required to surrender their handguns due to the actions of one individual. The core issues of inadequate police vetting of those owning firearms and social services detecting such an offender were never successfully addressed. This was highlighted when the number of incidents involving illegally imported weapons in violent crime skyrocketed in the following years. Thus despite the punishment of law-abiding citizens, nothing was done to tackle the issue of illegal weapons held by criminals. Libertarians add that if major decisions were made in this manner then severe abuses of human rights might occur due to temporary public fervor. | ||
[[Category:Libertarianism]] | [[Category:Libertarianism]] | ||