Introduction and qualifications
The meaning and use of the words libertarian and libertarianism inspire considerable debate, for adherents to several different political outlooks want to claim these words as their own. This is no surprise, since liberty is the root word, which itself is subject to several different interpretations, and is also an important concept to several, opposing theories. These controversies are evident in the talk pages associated with various articles related to libertarian and other political theories.
This particular article deals with describing the modern sense of libertarian theory as both a political and an economic philosophy, and as libertarianism is widely understood in the United States of America and in many other parts of the English-speaking world. For other meanings and uses of the word, refer to libertarian socialism and to some of the links shown below. Most modern doctrines that use the concepts associated with liberty, even though they conflict with one another, adopt certain principles and ideas from classical liberalism, and their differences are partly a matter of what they choose to emphasize.
For the strictly philosophical meaning pertaining to free will, see libertarianism (philosophy).
Also, note that the words “libertarian and “libertarianism” are sometimes used to refer to liberty in a more general way, without regard to a specific, overarching ideology, such as when one describes a person who advocates civil liberties as a “civil libertarian.”
Definition
In this context, libertarianism is a political philosophy that emphasizes individual rights and advocates limited government. Of particular importance to libertarians are so-called “negative rights,” which can be broadly characterized as emphasizing an individual's right to be left alone and to be free from coercion by others, including the right to acquire and dispose of private property as he sees fit. This contrasts with so-called “positive rights” (e.g., rights to a minimum income or healthcare), which require corresponding duties for members of society to provide others with certain primary goods. Libertarians believe that the principal role of government is to protect one's individual rights, not to promote the welfare of others, and that the enforcement of these individual rights requires a minimal state apparatus for the administration of justice and defense from external threats.
History
While the terms have been used in various places and times to denote other things, the modern usage of "libertarian" and "libertarianism" became prominent in the United States in the 20th century after World War II. In part, libertarians wanted to distinguish their ideas from modern liberalism, particularly as it has come to be understood in the United States, which, among other things, includes government activism, interference in economic matters, and some version of a welfare state. Libertarians sought to hew a philosophical line closer to what they believed the founders of classical liberalism intended, especially philosophers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. Their views influenced some of the most prominent libertarian thinkers of the 20th century, including Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Hospers, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick, among others (see links below).
Basic philosophy
Libertarians can be broadly classified into two major categories, namely, those who emphasize individual rights and those who emphasize economic efficiency and the distribution of social goods. Those in the former group, such as Robert Nozick, maintain that a person has the right to acquire property, use it, and exchange it freely, as long as he 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 acquires in accordance with the principles of justice or morality.
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. The latter view is more of a utilitarian argument, whereas the former one is more of a natural rights argument.
Some libertarians would deny that there is a conflict between the natural rights and utilitarian perspectives, and that there is a natural harmony between them.
Libertarians (in the foregoing sense) of all stripes strictly oppose all collectivist and communitarian views, and place individual liberty above other political considerations. For the libertarian, rights vest in individuals and not in groups such as nations, races, religions, classes, or cultures. Proponents of this conception hold that it nonsensical to say that a wrong can be done to a class or a race in the absence of specific wrongs to the individual members of that group. Governments have no original rights or duties other than those bestowed upon them by the citizenry, and even then, government must only protect the rights of individuals and not infringe upon them unless, of course, it is required to protect the rights of others, or weigh competing interests. As philosophers have observed, this points to the fact that there is sometimes a natural tension between democratic concerns, the will or preferences of the group, and individual liberty. When pressed, libertarians generally side with liberty over democracy, if the will of the majority were to interfere with individual rights.
All libertarians subscribe to the Lockean notion that the first instance of property is ownership in one's own person, and many believe that the ownership of external objects occurs when one mixes one’s labor, an extension of oneself, with them, which, in turn, gives the owner the right to transfer his interests, for example, through exchange, inheritance, or as a gift. Most libertarians would argue 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. Ownership of certain natural resources (e.g., air and water) is more problematic, and various formulae have been proposed by Locke, Murray Rothbard, and others. Locke’s proviso to the acquisition of property, for example, a constraint that has inspired considerable debate, was that there had to be "enough" of the earth's bounty left for everyone.
While property rights are central to libertarian theory, few if any libertarians would posit that there are absolute or invioable property rights, meaning that one can do whatever one wants with his property. Thus, for example, one ought not to set one's house on fire, notwithstanding the fact that he owns it, if that also would cause the neighborhood to burn down. Most libertarians believe that the disposition of one's property, including the exchange of it and contractual matters, must be guided by moral constraints. Such constraints might include environmental strictures, for reasons analogous to burning one's house down, though there is considerable debate about how to accomplish this.
Libertarians and the state
Libertarians argue for limited and decentralized state power, a “night-watchman” version of government, which, they contend, is not dissimilar to the views of some representatives of early classical liberalism and the Founding Fathers of the United States, perhaps most notably, Thomas Jefferson. This view is sometimes called minarchism, which, as the name suggests, entails the support of a minimal government. This serves to distinguish adherents from believers in pure anarchism, which proposes to do away with the state altogether. The minarchist maintains that it is unrealistic to abandon every aspect of state, but that the principal role of the state is to protect individual rights, including property rights, and that state apparatus ought to be centered on the administration of justice, including a minimal police force, and a military for self-defense.
Some libertarians might see a governmental role for the management of certain public goods, such as promoting clean air and providing for roads. Libertarians disagree about what extent governement ought to be involved, for example, setting standards for dispensing clean water versus providing it. Some would have such functions performed entirely by private concerns and paid for only by those who use the specific services (e.g., through private, voluntary associations). The most radical libertarians would deny that government has any role whatsoever, even setting standards. They contend everything ought to be left to consumers and private concerns.
Libertarians and economics
As previously observed, whether of a utilitarian or natural rights bent, all libertarians believe that the government ought not to interfere with private markets other than to facilitate the enforcement of contracts and the protection of property (e.g., copyright laws). The natural rights proponents would argue that this would be true even if one could demonstrate that socialism is more efficient from an economic perspective, for the right to property, including having property in one’s person and, by extension, in one’s labor, supercedes efficiency. Utilitarians, in contrast, argue that the empirical evidence demonstrates that various redistributionist schemes and, in particular, state ownership of the factors of production are all bound to fail, and that capitalism ultimately provides a more optimal and equitable distribution of goods to members of society.
Libertarians also believe that liberty and democracy are both best protected through free and open markets. For example, Hayek and Friedman both maintain that nothing is more democratic than buyers making choices in the marketplace. Some libertarians even hold that public accommodation laws, such as prohibiting race discrimination in privately-owned establishments, are unnecessary, since, they believe, such establishments would ultimately go under due to consumer preferences.
So-called “anarcho-capitalists” reject government institutions entirely, maintaining that a capitalist framework would be best for all of society, one in which free-market institutions even administer justice and provide for the common defense. They contend that no government is preferable to any form of government. A very different strain of anarchism, one which also rejects government, is opposed to most forms of private property and supports the socialist ideal of common ownership.
Many libertarians believe that it is unlikely that government will ever disappear, and that it is therefore impractical to waste a great deal of time pining for such an day, or in spinning wheels over too much theoretical minutiae concerning societies that will never obtain in reality. Instead, they believe that it is more worthwhile to spend one’s time attempting to limit and contain government intrusions wherever possible, particularly as it concerns interfereing with individual preferences and economic activities.
Unlike many socialists, especially Marxists, libertarians (e.g., Hayek, Mises, and Friedman) completely discount the notion that labor value is amenable to objective measurement and commensurable, or something that can be used to establish price. They 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. Moreover, they believe that only prices rendered in a free market can synthesize and communicate the preferences and relevant, time-sensitive data to millions of consumers and producers, alike, and that any attempt to objectify these transactions by a centralized authority is doomed to fail.
Libertarians' place in the political spectrum
Strains of libertarianism are evident in other, opposing political philosophies. Thus, for example, modern conservatives might well prefer unfettered markets or free trade (it should be noted that not all conservatives do), whereas they would not decriminalize the use of illicit drugs or prostitution. Socialists are often 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.
Modern conservatives, liberals, and socialists among the industrialized democracies all claim to promote liberty, and all contend that the other camp would allow for less of it; of course, the conservatives tend to emphasize economic liberty, whereas the socialists or modern liberals emphasize civil liberties. Libertarians argue that economic libertry and other liberties are inextricably related and inseparable, and that civil rights are ultimately impossible without the right to property and free exchange.
It is exceedingly difficult to categorize most political outlooks into neat boxes and a few descriptive phrases, and libertarianism is perhaps especially problematic. Outside observers who pay particular attention to the similarities between libertarianism and socialist views might brand libertarianism as left of center, whereas, those who focus on the similarities with free-market conservatives might characterize it as a right-wing philosophy. Most libertarians would contend that they do not occupy either end of the one-dimensional, left-right spectrum.
The founder of the United States Libertarian Party, David Nolan, proposed a two-dimensional, Cartesian co-ordinate system to differentiate libertarianism from other doctrines, one that emphasizes that libertarianism possesses the least constraints on both personal and economic freedoms. One axis of the chart deals with personal freedom, and the other deals with economic freedom. Under this conception, right-wing ideologies and libertarians share maximum economic freedom, and left-wing ideologies and libertarians share maximum personal freedoms. Some critics of modern libertarianism would argue that the libertarian conception of “liberty” is itself flawed, and that private property is a primary means of controlling the freedom of others, something they believe Nolan chart does not properly depict. Other critics of the Nolan chart would argue that it places political ideologies in the wrong quadrant altogether.
It is sufficient to say that modern versions of libertarianism, socialism, and liberalism are all the progeny of classical liberalism to one extent or another, in that they are all founded on some of the same first principles propounded during the Enlightenment, though there are different combinations and degrees of emphasis. It is also evident that characterizations such as right-wing, left-wing, statist, or authoritarian are seldom illuminating in describing any political ideology, and, as often as not, that they are loaded words used to cast a negative light on opposing views.
Libertarianism and Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand’s works have influenced many libertarians, and many of her followers would consider themselves libertarians. This is not surprising, since many of the principles of Rand’s philosophy of "Objectivism" and the principles of libertarianism overlap. However, Rand also made it clear that she was not a libertarian. Rand thought libertarians and conservatives both placed a disproportionate amount of emphasis on capitalism as an economic construct. She maintained that capitalism is acceptable because it allows for private property and not vice versa. The right to property is a moral principle in Rand's view, and not a question of economics or politics. What is more, Rand believed that man’s rationality required him to acquire property, and that without it he could not fulfill or implement his life plans. Thus, she believed that any outlook that would constrain this is necessarily irrational.
Highlights of principal criticisms and counter-arguments
- Modern liberalism and libertarianism
One of the principal criticisms of libertarianism was formulated by the political philosopher John Rawls, who said that if rational people were unaware of their own advantages and prospects, that is, if they operated under a hypothetical “veil of ignorance,” they would choose to limit the risks of adversity, and that they would want society to provide a safety net for the least advantaged.
Libertarians argue that end-state theories such as Rawls’ conception, no matter how democratically conceived, cannot override an individual’s moral right to both own and use property he acquires, that is, to the extent he does so in accordance with the princples of morality.
- Noam Chomsky's radical critique of property and libertarianism
Other 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 unholy 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 still more diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace, and therefore less dangerous than any centralized, monopoly authority that redistributes wealth and purports to work for the benefit of others. Libertarians contend that government power will inevitably act against the interests of most of society, notwithstanding the good intentions that might have obtained originally.
- Socialism and libertarianism
Classical Marxists and many modern socialists subscribe to the Lockean notion that a man’s labor gives him ownership of property, but that modern production makes it impossible to divide ownership of either the factors of production or 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 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. Other critics would observe that there is no mystical investment of self and ownership implied through the act of laboring upon external objects, otherwise oxen would be property owners. Furthermore, some libertarians argue that the Marxist analysis of surplus value 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.
- Classical liberalism and libertarianism
Some point out that there are some major differences between the views of the founders of classical liberalism and libertarians who often claim to be the former's intellectual progeny. For example, they note that Adam Smith showed disdain for individuals involved in commerce, who he said seldom convene without planning to do some mischief to the public. They also point out that Thomas Jefferson was very suspicious of commercial and financial concerns, as he was of most institutions that could exercise authority over individuals.
Libertarians counter that Smith also stated we should be suspicious of those who purport to do work for the benefit of others, and that the process of individuals pursuing their own ends will ultimately benefit society, notwithstanding the egocentric motives of the participants. Moreover, libertarians are apt to cite Jefferson’s well-documented suspicions of government, his arguments for civil liberties, including the right to property, and his own predilection for acquiring property.
- Communitarians and libertarians
Some critics (e.g., communitarians) argue that libertarians pay insufficient attention to the fact that humans are social animals,and that everyone depends on others to some extent, and that every right also implies a corresponding duty to others. They believe that libertarians fail to recognized that homo sapiens cannot be defined as individuals, alone, but also must be seen as members of a group. What is more, they argue that many advantages and disadvantages that inure to us are actually "undeserved" accidents of birth or the result of chance, and that the most fortunate among us have a duty to rectify some of the imbalances that occur, especially when these imbalances result in unnecessary suffering.
Many libertarians will argue that what counts, morally, is whether or not one's station is the result of a fair transfer of property, one's historical entitlement, and not someone else's ideal about how property ought to be distributed or who is more or less deserving amongst us. Others would argue that the least advantaged in society ultimately will benefit as a result of the unhindered efforts of the most advantaged.
The term "libertarian" was originally confined to the kind of libertarianism outlined in libertarian socialism, and practiced by such organisations as the Libertarian League and the Libertarian Book Club. Following the creation of the Libertarian Party in the United States, the usage of the word changed in America. Originally the terms "libertarian capitalism" (for the the kind of libertarianism outlined in this article) and "libertarian socialism" were coined to contrast the two libertarianism. As time went on, aided by the electoral performance of the Libertarian Party, libertarianism came to mean primarily libertarian capitalism. The traditional use persists outside of America, though the spread of American nomenclature through the internet is beginning to change this. Most libertarians would now reject what the descriptor "libertarian capitalism" implies, however, for it emphasizes capitalism, an economic system, as opposed to individual rights, including what many believe to be the moral right to property.
Controversies 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 to be blindly accepted. Rather, they are generally considered a reference to compare one's opinions and arguments with.
These controversies are addressed in separate articles:
A typographical convention
Note that some writers follow the convention of using libertarian (spelled in lowercase) to mean a general advocate of libertarianism, while Libertarian (capitalized) often refers specifically to a member of a libertarian political party.
Quotations
"Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."
— Definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, during the process of granting the Advocates for Self-Government status as a non-profit educational organization.
Modern libertarians
Notable theorists and authors
Politicians and media personalities
Celebrities
Libertarian magazines
Books and articles on libertarianism and on related matters
The Libertarian Reader, an anthology Edited by David Boaz, (The Free Press, 1997).
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman, (University of Chicago Press, 1962).
Hayek on Liberty, John Gray, (Basil Blackwell, 1986).
Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin, in Science, Issue 162, December 1968
Two Treatises of Government, John Locke, (Cambridge University Press, 1963).
The Origins of English Individualism, Alan Macfarlane, (Cambridge University Press, 1978)
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, in The Utilitarians, edited by Peter Smith, (Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973).
Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis, Ludwig von Mises, 1936, (Liberty Fund,1962).
Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick, (Basic Books, 1974).
See also
External links
Libertarian links
Non-libertarian links
- Critiques Of Libertarianism (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html) (includes sub-sections presenting anti-libertarian arguments from different political standpoints, as well as more general arguments)
|
