- The term libertarian is also claimed by libertarian socialism. The article Libertarianism (metaphysics) deals with a conception of free will. See also civil libertarian.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that individuals should be allowed 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 may initiate coercion, which they define as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or the use of fraud to prevent individuals from having wilful use of their person or property. For libertarians, a "voluntary" action is one not influenced by coercion.
Libertarians believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as the individuals of which they are composed. Thus, they oppose government initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority. Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose prohibition of "victimless crimes." This opposition to coercion extends into the economic realm, as they generally oppose taxation and government interference in business activities (other than to forbid coercion). Those who do not oppose taxation support it only to the extent that no more taxes are levied than they believe necessary to maximize the protection of individual liberty. Libertarians aim to reduce the size and scope of government. To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and economic liberties (through private property and a free market) through a police force, an all-volunteer military (with no conscription), and courts. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, maintain that these institutions should be privately owned, operated, and funded.
While libertarianism's influence has grown in the past few decades, most libertarians see their ultimate vision for society as far from realized.
Terminology
The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. Originally, it referred to a variant of anarchist socialism. After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon from New Orleans. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861.[2]
This usage spread to English, but for the most part, English-speaking anarchists choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, or anarcho-syndicalists, (they may subscribe to certain forms of socialism called libertarian socialism). Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word libertarian is qualified as in "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian."
A typographical convention
When the "L" in Libertarian is capitalized, the word refers specifically to a member of a Libertarian Party, as opposed to someone who favors the philosophy of libertarianism. This distinction is important because some libertarians do not align themselves with a Libertarian Party, and may even be members of other parties. For example, Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman, author of the influential book Free to Choose, says he is a member of the United States Republican Party for the sake of "expediency."
Libertarianism in the political spectrum
Many libertarians do not identify themselves as either "right-wing" or "left-wing". In the U.S. 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 of this position is Friedrich Hayek's Why I am Not a Conservative[3].
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, which is named after David Nolan, who designed the chart and also founded the United States Libertarian Party. A similar chart and political quiz to place individuals on it is promoted by the Advocates for Self Government[4].
Some of the chart's critics argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" is flawed because it ignores the effects powerlessness and poverty have on liberty. Others argue that the associated political quiz is biased towards libertarianism or that the chart dismisses nonlibertarian values.[5]
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. Libertarians tend to agree with the views of the liberal thinker John Stewart Mill on liberty but disagree with his socialist politics and with his application of utilitarianism.
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, businesses, 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, and a focus on individual liberty unite the two philosophies.
Libertarian politics and philosophy
Libertarians tend to call themselves "individualists," and oppose anything that they see as paternalistic or collectivist. Many libertarians hold that certain personal liberties (such as privacy and freedom of speech) and economic liberties (such as a right to own property, and freedom to trade, profit, labor, or invest) are both justifiable on the same philosophical or ethical foundations. Some libertarians have elaborate philosophies to support their positions, while others are simply drawn to freedom instinctively.
Rights and the law
Main articles: libertarian views of rights and Libertarian theories of law
Libertarians believe that initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud to compel behavior or acquire property of individuals should be regarded as a violation of their individual 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.[6]
This view has caused controversy, as many "rights" to be provided with something by the actions of others ("positive rights") are now the status quo in the United States, especially in politically thorny areas like racial discrimination and health care. Libertarians believe that providing for others should be a matter of private and voluntary decision.
Libertarians argue that only individuals have rights—never groups. Thus, the government has no original rights but only those duties with which it has been lawfully entrusted by individual citizens, and majority rule is not considered sufficient justification for government coercion. 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, and emphasize protections of individual freedoms against majority rule. Friedrich Hayek had some of the most developed ideas on what libertarian law would be like, while Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett are three of the most influential modern thinkers in this area.
A popular perception of libertarians is that they would allow pollution of the environment. However, libertarians oppose environmental damage as an act of initiatory coercion, and would impose civil or criminal penalties against it. For example, Russell Means, an American Indian activist who competed for the 1988 presidential nomination for the Libertarian Party says: "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility."[7] The U.S. Libertarian Party opposes pollution as "a violation of individual rights" in its platform. Critics that are aware of this position see the libertarian view of property rights as a threat to the environment, rather than a cure.[8] They also claim that many aspects of the environment, such as scenic beauty, are extremely hard to valuate.
Private property
Libertarians often justify property rights on the basis of self-ownership or the right to life. They reason that claims by others on one's labor and its products are tantamount to slavery, and may argue that if individuals feel reasonably secure that their produce will not be confiscated (or treated as collective property as in socialism), then they are more likely to be productive and therefore contributive to the material wealth of themselves and society. Libertarians believe that capitalism is the only system that allows for and protects this form of self-ownership and external property.
Libertarian economic views
Main Article: Libertarian economic views
Libertarians believe that the means of production should be privately owned, and that investments, production, distribution, income, and prices should be determined through the operation of a free market rather than by centralized state control. Hence, in opposition to statism and socialism they support capitalism. According to libertarians, government interventions such as taxation and regulation are at best necessary evils (as they involve coercion and disrupt markets). Libertarians contend that independent, subjective valuations by individuals interacting in a free market are the only sensible means of making economic decisions, and that any attempt by a centralized authority to override these decisions by decree will fail or have overall negative consequences (see Austrian school). Libertarians favor separation of government and economy, therefore they also oppose all collusion between government and business (see crony capitalism) that would override the free market. Economists agree that decentralized decision-making is an important part of efficient markets, but most non-free-market economists argue that market failures tend to result unless government intervenes. While libertarians believe in the efficacy of free markets to allocate resources efficiently and equitably, they would not allow market forces to occasion any violations of individual negative liberty. Moreover, they oppose any coercion that would be employed to remedy what some perceive as "market failures."
Libertarians tend to not see unequal wealth distribution as a problem, and oppose any initiative that would seek to forcibly "redistribute" resources in an egalitarian manner. Some reason that welfare programs serve as a perverse incentive to keep individuals from working to earn a living, and that they tend to perpetuate unemployment and poverty[9]. The maximization of economic freedom, they assert, would reduce poverty by making the economy more efficient, obviating the perceived need for tax-funded programs. Moreover, they believe that any temporary equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly collapse without continuous coercion, reasoning that people's differing economic decisions would allow those that were more productive or traded more effectively to quickly gain disproportionate wealth. They see economic inequality a necessary outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable. Libertarians oppose forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation (see corporate welfare). Likewise, they oppose trade barriers to maintain businesses who would otherwise fail in the face of international competition, as well as oppose tax-funded programs such as The National Endowment for the Arts to support unprofitable artists. Libertarians believe all or almost all government spending and programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty and that private institutions should replace them. When dismantling government services is impossible, many libertarians (like Milton Friedman) prefer market reforms like school vouchers to the status quo, while others (like Lew Rockwell) see such programs as a threat to private industry and as a covert means of expanding government[10]
The libertarian movement
Libertarians and their allies are not a homogenous group, but have collaborated to form think tanks, 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[11] 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) advances libertarian views. A similar organization, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, exists within the Democratic Party, but is less organized. Republican Congressman Ron Paul is also a member of the Libertarian Party.
Costa Rica's Movimiento Libertario (Libertarian Movement Party) is a prominent non-U.S. libertarian party that controls roughly 10% of Costa Rica's national legislature[12]. Movimiento Libertario is considered the first Libertarian organization in history to accomplish substantial electoral success at the national level.
In 2001, the Free State Project was founded by Jason Sorens, a political scientist and libertarian activist who argued that 20,000 libertarians should migrate to a single U.S. state in order to concentrate their activism. In August of 2003, the membership of the Free State Project chose New Hampshire. However, as of 2005, there are concerns over the low rate of growth in signed Free State Project participants. In addition, discontented Free State Project participants, in protest of the choice of New Hampshire, started rival projects, including the Free West Alliance, to concentrate activism in a different state or region. There is also a European Free State Project.
For a list of libertarian political parties, think tanks, and other projects, see External Links below.
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 [the Ayn Rand Institute] has among orthodox Objectivists."[13]
Anarcho-capitalists and minarchists
Main articles: Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism
There is no consensus among libertarians about how much government is necessary and whether there is a right to be defended by others. Minarchists believe that the government should be limited exclusively (or almost exclusively) to protecting rights. For them, the legitimate functions of government might include the maintenance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other functions (e.g., roads or schools).
Anarcho-capitalists wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that a state monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic.
With the exception of a few groups, including some anarcho-capitalists and those influenced by an orthodox interpretation of Objectivist philosophy, the minarchist/anarcho-capitalist division is generally friendly. 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 libertarian philosophers such as Tibor Machan argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction. [14]
Consequences and natural law
While some libertarians do not emphasize the justifications of their beliefs, those that do can be broadly classified into two major categories: those who emphasize individual moral rights, and those who believe that political rights are justifiable for practical reasons such as 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.
Representatives of the latter group, such as Milton Friedman, instead emphasize arguments that capitalism is the most effective means of promoting social good. This is a more pragmatic, consequentialist line of reasoning. Consequentialist libertarians favor protection of rights not because they consider rights to be sacred, but because, in their view, protecting rights produces a society which has good results, such as an increase in wealth, safety, happiness, and fairness.
Some, like Frederic Bastiat see a natural harmony between these two points of view, and do not attempt to establish one view as truer than the other.
The role of Objectivism
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",[15] 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... 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 embarrassed by his magazine's association with her ideas.[16] 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."[17] Though they reject what they see as Randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still believe that "Rand's message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for libertarianism.
Other controversies among libertarians
These controversies are addressed in separate articles:
- Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians are political allies with liberals' noneconomic issues. Others ally with isolationist, religious paleoconservatives, despite sharp disagreement on economic issues.
- Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property: Some libertarians try to define objective property rights for ideas, while others try to use intellectual property rights for other goals such as maximizing innovation. There is no consensus within either group on the best system.
- Libertarian perspectives on immigration: Natural law libertarians must decide whether freedom of movement or rights against trespassing take precedence in immigration debates. Consequentialist libertarians may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy instead.
- Libertarian perspectives on abortion: The abortion debate among libertarians 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 suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. Others (such as those influenced by Objectivism) argue that intervention is not unethical when a foreign government is abusing the rights of its citizens but whether a nation should intervene depends on its own self-interest.
- 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.
- Libertarian perspectives on natural resources: Some libertarians (such as free market environmentalists) want to avoid mismanagement of public resources through private ownership of all natural resources, while others (such as geolibertarians) believe that such resources (especially land) cannot be considered property.
Criticism of libertarianism
See main article: Criticism of libertarianism
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. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the 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 drug 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."[18]
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 only function among "a well-knit community of citizens" that rests on social obligations libertarians reject. These critics argue that without this foundation, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.[19]
The argument that property itself is theft, promoted by many anarchists, would undermine almost all of capitalist theory if successfully argued. Some argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, justifying its redistribution. This is especially true in the Americas where, they argue, land was stolen from its Native American owners, but applies in any context where critics believe the power of the rich enables them to gain unearned profits at the expense of their workers.
Other criticism focuses on economics. Critics argue that where libertarian economic theory has been implemented (as in Chile), the results show that libertarian economic ideas threaten freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth[20]. In addition, some critics claim that libertarianism's anti-statism would eliminate necessary government services. A frequently cited example is health care; critics argue that a lack of medical knowledge among consumers, and a moral requirement to provide service for those who cannot pay, make sufficient health care impossible in a 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[21].
Others critics, such as Jeffrey Friedman, editor of Critical Review magazine, argue that libertarians oversimplify issues such as the efficacy of state intervention, shifting the burden of proof to their opponents without justification.[22] Friedman also argues that libertarian views on human nature consist more of "ideology and political crusading" than "scholarship," as when libertarians assume that people act to maximize their own utility or that their self-interested actions will always serve human needs better than government.
Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas 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.
See also
- See also: Republitarianism; Austrian school; capitalism; Chicago school; individualist anarchism; deregulation; Republican Liberty Caucus
- Opposes: mercantilism; statism; collectivism; socialism; fabianism; communism; nazism; fascism; Welfare state; planned economy; regulation.
- Related topics: Civil Society; open society; political models; ideology
Notes and references
^ Advocates for Self Government website. "Russell Means—Libertarian" [23] ^ Advocates for Self Government website. "The World's Smallest Political Quiz".[24] ^ The Capitalism Tour. Capitalism Magazine. [25] ^ Cleveland, Paul and Stevenson, Brian. Individual Responsibility and Economic Well-Being. The Freeman, August 1995.[26] ^ Friedman, Jeffrey. What's Wrong With Libertarianism, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 3. Summer 1997[27] (large PDF file) ^ Gillespie, Nick. Rand Redux, Reason Magazine, March 2005 [28] ^ Goldberg, Jonah. Freedom Kills. National Review Online, December 12, 2001.[29] ^ Hayek, F.A. Why I am not a Conservative, University of Chicago Press, 1960[30] ^ Huben, Michael. A Non-Libertarian FAQ, March 15, 2005 version.[31] ^ Huben, Michael, A Non-Libertarian FAQ, March 15, 2005 [32] ^ Kangas, Steve. Chile: the Laboratory Test. Liberalism Resurgent, [33] ^ Levy, Jacob. SELF-CRITICISM, The Volokh Conspiracy, March 19, 2003 [34] ^ Libertarian Party News. Murray Rothbard: 1926-1995, February 1995.[35] ^ Machan, Tibor R. Revisiting Anarchism and Government, [36]. ^ Nettlau, Max. A Short History of Anarchism, 2000. p. 75 ^ Partridge, Ernest. "With Liberty and Justice for Some." Environmental Philosophy edited by Michael Zimmerman, Baird Callicott, Karen Warren, Irene Klaver, and John Clark, 2004.[37] ^ Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand’s Q&A on Libertarians from a 1971 interview [38] ^ Rockwell, Lew and Friedman, Milton. "Friedman v. Rockwell." Chronicles, December 1998. [39] ^ Sanchez, Julian. "The Other Guevara." Reason Magazine, August 12, 2003.[40] ^ Yglesias, Matthew. "Health is Forever". April 15, 2005. [41] ^ Young, Cathy. Ayn Rand at 100, Reason Magazine. March 2005 [42]
External links
Libertarian political parties around the world
- Site of the United States Libertarian Party
- Site of Movimiento Libertario (Costa Rica)
- Site of Libertarianz (New Zealand)
- Site of ACT New Zealand, a self-described classical liberal party in New Zealand that is also sometimes described as libertarian
- Site of the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia
- Site of the Libertarian Society of Iceland
- Site of Rossiyskoye Libertarianskoye Dvizhenie [43] (Russian Libertarian Movement)
- Site of the Libertarian Party of Bangladesh
- Site of the Libertarian Party of Canada
Libertarian think tanks
- site of the Cato Institute
- site of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
- site of the Libertarian Alliance (British)
- site of the Advocates for Self-Government
- site of the International Society for Individual Liberty - see their Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty
- site of the American Liberty Foundation
- site of the Foundation for Economic Education
- site of the Institute for Humane Studies
- site of the Future of Freedom Foundation
- site of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian school economics)
- site of the Adam Smith Institute
- site of The Independent Institute
- site of the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (Australia)
Other libertarian political projects
- site of the Free State Project
- European Free State Project
- The Libertarian International Organization
- site of the Libertarian International
- site of the Seastead
- Oceania a libertarian project terminated in 1994
Libertarian publications and websites
- European Libertarians
- Open Directory libertarian links List of Notable Libertarian Theorists and Authors web page
- site of the Libertarian Learning Centre
- site of Libertarian.org
- site of Laissez Faire Books
- site of The Tao of Liberty
- site of The Freeman
- site of Liberty (magazine)
- site of Liberator Online
- site for Thomas Szasz
- site of Lew Rockwell
- site of Freedom Daily
- site of Reason (magazine)
- Libertari.org Italian libertarian/anarcho-capitalist site
Critiques of libertarianism
- Critiques Of Libertarianism (includes sub-sections presenting anti-libertarian arguments from different political standpoints, as well as more general arguments)
- Comparison of Libertarians and Anarchists (Humor)
- What's wrong with libertarianism
- Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
- Why is libertarianism wrong?
- Google Directory collection of critical articles
- Why Not the Libertarian Party?, Constitution Party critique of Libertarianism.