Strangelove: Libertarianism + Society
No one ever accused Libertarians of being boring.They can be dyed in the wool entrepreneurs who happen to hate paying taxes, highly paid individuals who resent all forms of collectivist thinking, or even free spirited good timers who don`t appreciate the government intrusions into their lives. The actual character of the Libertarians themselves is relatively unimportant, although they appear to be intelligent and well versed in Ayn Rand`s writing and philosophy. Despite their background or opinions, they agree on one thing: government must be stopped or dismantled completely. This is the essence of Libertarianism: a certain contempt for the organization of a nation and its rule of law.
Libertarianism, as an ideology, may never explicitly state this, but it is certainly implied. Libertarianism itself asks that no laws be imposed in a criminal court, but that all disputes be rectified in a civil court. Individuals would theoretically motivated by a `personal interest` (aka: potential monetary loss) not to act against others in a criminal way. All actions would technically be `legal`, but would be subject to civil trial. This presupposes that all individuals have a in-depth knowledge of the law, and that lawyers would be readily available for late night domestic disputes where they could convene a court on the front steps of the trailor park for an instantaneous monetary rectification. Instantly serving muggers and car theives for their court dates would prove more challenging.
But what Libertarianism lacks in practicality, it makes up for in idealism; That is part of the allure of Libertarianism: it is served by its own utopian mythology that has served similar ideologies like anarchism or pre revolution bolshevism. It is hard to argue against libertarianism when the imperfect but functional reality that is the welfare state is compared to the perfectly operating nirvana of the libertarian state. `Of course this government program doesn`t work-it`s operated by a government...if only there was a Libertarian state to rectify this`.
Of course, in reality, there are countries where the central government has been displaced and what is feared even in the deepest recesses of Libertarian thought has become a reality in these states-mob rule. While most reasonable Libertarians deplore what might happen, and state that `This would never happen in a real Libertarian state` the practical application of the idea (the ultimate test of theory) has become a nightmare. Ethiopia, arguably the most chaotic of any state on earth, has descended into a nightmare where the absence of government has formed a power vacuum where the monopoly of violence once owned by the government is now farmed out to unaccountable henchmen and warlords. The same situation is being played out in West Belfast where terrorists effectively rule through coercion and propaganda as the state has backed off and left Catholic areas in the hands of the IRA.
While the term monopoly of violence is quite an ominous term, and implies a somewhat negative connotation (monopoly, a la Microsoft or Standard Oil) it is quite a benefit to the individual. With a monopoly of violence, the democratic government is the only one held accountable for the violence and its uneven application. A parallel power that amasses the strength outside of the law to impose its way on the masses is not accountable at all, and acts as alternative fascist state waiting to take over in the event of a toppled or depleted government.
If Libertarianism has been a failure in application, what should we make of its greatest champions? One can almost imagine Ayn Rand bristling under the Soviet behemoth as the complete anihilation of individual rights was completed for the subservience of the state. It is no surprise that her conclusion was that the complete opposite of the personal hell of communism was the utopia of libertarianism, where the state held no hold over the individual at all. Her personal experience validated her philosophy, and for that she cannot be judged too harshly. She brought an interesting and informed viewpoint forward and staked out a political space she felt was valid and brought many people to her position.
Milton Friedmann on the other hand, has much to answer for. While he may not be considered a Libertarian in the political sense, he is one of the greater apologists for anti-government animosity in the US, and could be considered the most high profile apologist of the anti-government crowd at the moment. Friedmann has been an award winning economist for some time and there is no doubting his intellectual power. His opinion is rightly respected and he is a giant of the times we live in. If we see farther in the future, it will be because we have stood in his shoulders. In light of this, we should at least examine the actions of Friedmann over his career.
In the height of the post-Allende coup, a group of youngish alumni from the University of Chicago economics students brought in Friedmann to help plan the Chilean economy. At this point it should be carefully considered: if Friedmann really thought that government had no place in the lives of individuals, why was he serving the interests of a violent dictator? If he didn`t think that the policies of the government would make no impact, was he simply there for a holiday and a pay package from Pinochet? The answer is obvious: Friedmann knew that the rule of law, combined with the establishment of capital institutions by the government would provide the make up of a balanced and successful capitalist economy that would eventually lead to a democratic and prosperous state. He was right, of course, and Chile has emerged as a shining light in the sometimes dark continent of South America.
Allan Greenspan, for his part, was an early convert to Rand's ideology, penning an anti-regulation essay in 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'. Greenspan has come to see the light that government controlled central banks and a healthy regulatory environment promote stability and prosperity. Greenspan has come full circle: From anti-regulatory renegade, to becoming (arguably) the world's most powerful regulator.
Apart from Libertarianism`s problems with application and its sometimes inconsistent proponents, it suffers from another more serious affliction-it basically rules out any of the debt we owe to each other as humans. Libertarianism might say it is immaterial what is owed, and that this `debt` is in the area of buddhist raver theory. Any single individual who succeeds and does well in this life, does not only owe his or her success to their own `great work and determination`. Anyone who had done well has had others who were more than willing to do more than `what the market required` to see that any successful individual did well.
Who set the conditions for the successful types who want to break their ties of responsibility to others? One thousand years ago, there would be no choice for 99% of Libertarians to do anything other than tend to a farm (not that there is anything wrong with that). Was it only the self-interest of others that created favourable conditions for today`s individuals to thrive? Of course not. Millions have died for our freedom. Millions have suffered for their progeny. We are born into the debt of others who have created the favourable conditions for us to succeed.
Of course the debt to each other in a society is often paid back in terms of the tax we pay. Libertarianism, in its quest to break free of government ties, has advocated the idea that `tax is theft`, and that breaking tax laws is in fact acceptable since the government has commited the crime of robbing citizens of their income. While a libertarian would find no argument from this writer about the fiscal irresponsibility or governments in general and the waste they generate, simply opting out of tax laws has its own ethical issues. Tax evaders might be heros in Libertarian writing, but the opting out of tax paying means that the tax burden is left to a smaller law-abiding majority. While some Libertarians may enjoy the social benefits of society while avoiding the legal duties to pay tax, a smaller chunk of the working world picks up the slack with relatively higher taxes (all else being equal).
Forgetting all other criticism for a moment, the basic purpose of a government or state is to protect its people, defend the collective interests, and improve the standard of living. It might be flawed in many of its attempts, but is it worth dismantling just to marginally increase the freedom of the individual? Even if you agree, the rational outcome will be a chaotic mess of competing free mercenary interests looking to impose order for monetary gain. Without a government, we are unable to act to defend ourselves (how many people can personally afford a tank), unable to pursue foreign interests, and unable to care for those around us effectively.
For all the problems associated with Libertarianism, it is not evil or malignant. Its basic premise is promoting personal freedom and individuality. Libertarianism provides a the unique perspective of an ideology that is both pro peace and anti government spending. Libertarians are naturally the friends of fiscal conservatives and should not be disaccociated from their natural allies. It is not likely (it is hoped) that a Libertarian revolution will overcome the west, although it will not be without the help and strength of Libertarians that government will become increasingly accountable. Libertarians are critical of the governmental waste of the west, and despise the imposition of the government`s will when it burdens the individual. These are healthy attitudes that serve to remind others when our governments have overstepped their bounds.
While fiscal conservatives and Libertarians will never agree on their end goals, there is no reason to believe that there will ever be a reasonable choice between these two visions of the role of government. Just as there are forces that disagree on the fine details of the left, but unite for strength and numbers, the Libertarians and fiscal conservatives should stick together for influence and power.
posted by Shamrocks! @ 10:32 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With all due respect to Patrick, I ask by what right and sanction are our elected representatives endowed with the ability to garnish our wages and spend our earnings on things not of our own choosing. How can another be said to decide what is in my 'best interest.' Is it not rather 'utopian' to assume that governments, even though elected by the people, will spend our money in such noble ways to protect the poor and unfortunate? Although you agree that much of the money spent by governments is wasted, you believe at the same time that generally people will not be charitable unless forced. Now if that is the case, and if it is believed that people left to their own devices will lapse into barbarianism, then how can they be trusted to make just and wise decisions when it comes to election time.
You might say there are checks and balances in place to limit power, but the nature of power is that those who have it seek more and will continue to do so, with the additional advantage of having the police and the courts to back up their demands. At best, the decisions of the legislators are motivated by special interest groups and promised favours. At worst, these people crush their electors and vassals with laws, taxation and price controls for their own gain. The essential point being that such decisions will always be arbitrary and hence destructive to the general economy, even though the legislators, lawmakers and judges might have the best intentions in the world.
The idea that value can be determined by the market is confused with the idea that all value is monetary. All value is monetary in the sense that time and resources are limited, and certain choices preclude others and money is the means to secure the resources necessary for survival and to improve our standard of living. At the same time, a higher standard of living allows us to engage in other valuable activities and relationships which don't have an obvious price tag attached.
The welfare state may offer protection for a few, but it also enables a whole lot more people to illegitimately live at the expense of others. Many of the problems that exist today are a direct consequence of the state. Public administrators, the bulk of whom are unelected, are given the godlike task of deciding where the money is spent. Politicians and bureaucrats being human beings, they are most likely to spend it on projects that favour their own status and position. Just like the 'greedy' inhabitants of the free market, politicians hope to become prosperous. The obvious difference between honest advocates of the free market and public administrators is that real capitalists don't steal, and must make prudent decisions or they will directly suffer the consequences of their poor decisions. When you spend other people's money, you just don't take the same care.
Lawlessness is not libertarianism. Ethiopia is in shambles because the people were the victims of tyrants which destablized the society. In other words, countries that are subject to socialist regimes, and I include rule by fascists in this category, are the most poor. It is a necessary feature of totalitarian regimes that they are poorer in inverse proportion to the level of free exchange permitted. Hence the countries of the Middle East are vastly poorer. The wealthiest countries are those with the freest markets. Another good example would be postwar East Germany, especially as compared to West Germany. In socialist countries, the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and the general populace continues to work for someone else's gain while their general standard of living continues to fall. Take Castro for example, recently listed as one of the richest men in the world by Forbes magazine. He doesn't deny it, but instead 'justifies' it, by saying that "the revenues of Cuban state-run companies are used exclusively for the benefit of the people, to whom they belong."
A country or community of looting and roaming bands is not a libertarian society. It is hardly libertarian to take what you will because you have numbers behind you. The focal and central issues are that governments are by their nature necessary corrupt as they attempt to run an economy, lacking the omnipotent and objective viewpoint that would be required to do so.
And as I argued earlier in response to your post about Locke's article, violence is never justified except in instances of self-defense. Libertarianism does not advocate mob rule - such a label is more accurately applied to the state.
I also take issue with your idea of a 'debt' owed to others. I am afraid I have no idea what that debt might be. How could I be said to owe something to my neighbour if I haven't enlisted his services, nor taken something from him that did not belong to me? Why am I 'owed' something from people just because I happen to exist? Just what is it that we strangers owe each other? Respect for life and property, yes, but that does not entail that we need government to achieve this. We need to work together, but that is evidenced by the free exchanges and contracts that people enter into in the absence of governmental control or sanction. Most of us pay taxes because we are forced to do so and could perhaps face jail time and huge fines if we don't comply. A libertarian does not believe that taxation is just, and so only complies with taxation laws for fear of incarceration. We weren't given a chance to opt out of the services currently provided through taxation and indeed in Canada, when it comes to many essential services, like health care, we have no choice. The burden of labour might be heavier on those that remain in a concentration camp if I escape, but should I thereby remain a prisoner?
The true preferences and needs of the people, along with natural checks and balances, arise through a free market, unhampered by the meddling of ignorant bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. I won't go into the detailed and complex issues of security and national defense here, because although the means to ensure property rights are respected and upheld in libertarian societies are open to discussion, it does not thereby invalidate the position of libertarians.
"Libertarianism counters that charity outside the state is the only way to deliver services to the poor, and that that system would be more effective, the practical application of this theory during the Depression and the resulting social crisis has put that theory down for good. A more pointed response might be `Would you want to trust the care of the invalid and dowtrodden to an ideology that views these people as parasites?` says Patrick.
People are not viewed as parasites by libertarians except in so far as they subsist at the expense of others, against their will. What is considered charitable by the state? A few get money at the expense of others who might be deemed to have a charitable need. There is no scientific calculus to guide the arm of the state. Some people are always going to be worse off than others, no matter what kind of society we live in, but that is no reason to redistribute unearned income in the name of poverty and utilitarianism. As for your example of the Depression, I fail to understand, as the Depression was not the result of a libertarian society.
You say that "the basic purpose of a government or state is to protect its people, defend the collective interests, and improve the standard of living. It might be flawed in many of its attempts, but is it worth dismantling just to marginally increase the freedom of the individual?"
I answer that reason and justice guide the libertarian. True freedom is not a matter of compromise. And as for the concept of the government role being to protect the people and defend their 'collective interests', I say that this is the inherent problem with government in the first place. Such concepts might be clear to those of us who are lawful, but 'collective interests' determined by the free market are hampered by governments who have no legitimate means to determine what the 'collective interest' might be. Not to mention the standard of living is hardly improved as the incentive to work and produce is reduced in direct relation to the amount a person is taxed. Why bother when you can suck the blood of thy neighbour.
You'll have to get up pretty early in the morning to put one over Lisa — she had two hours to rattle off. I look forward to v1.01…
Sitting on the fence between libertarianism and conservatism, I tend to think of libertarianism as a lens through which to view and critique collective action, particularly that of governments — libertarians don't pretend that government is going to go away. It is not a formula for policy prescription or for any kind of collective action. It does inform my personal choices and thereby leads me to conservatism of principle but not of dictate.
Lisa+
I`m not worried about the majority of people instantly attacking each other the moment the police force is decimated, I`m worried about violent opportunists who take advantage of power vacuums. Most people in Northern Ireland don`t the IRA operating in their neighbourhoods, but these unelected leaders are the ones with the guns.
Yes, there is a natural will within government to expand its own size, but that`s not a reason to think that government cannot be shrunk, or made to do with less if necessary. Democratic governments responding to an informed electorate will (and have in the past) shrink the bureaucracy if the time came.
There is naturally horse trading amongst politicians and special interests, no doubt, but that does not mean that a government cannot be responsive to public awareness. The more cynics (like you and I) of government waste and mismanagement, the less likely they will be to abuse their power.
I`m afraid of the alternative to democracy. Call me a true believer. I think most evidence suggests that in the long run, a stable government with an effective and evenly enforced regulations in any market is beneficial to the economy. Business likes stability and prosperity, and the best chance of that is in a healthy democracy.
You know Lisa, I was thinking about this problem in Welfare state of what to do with people who can work and those who legitimately cannot work. I think the best way is to wean the `able` off social assistance like the bc liberals have done (our welfare expenses are down 50% since 95).
The other thing is that in the west we have a nuclear family, and in many cases single parents homes which have destabilized the living conditions of many. Generally, as in the heat wave of France of 2003 showed (I was one of the victims of the heat) when 10000 elderly died in a heatwave, we have given up on the most vulnerable, or have outsourced the job to the government.
In Japan, the taxes are extremely low, but when you see a physically disabled person in the street or someone mentally disabled, you don`t see a government paid `helper`- you see family members caring for them. But then, Japan has tighter and larger extended families. This society is hardly libertarian, but it does have stronger bonds between families and the general Japanese people.
And yeah, when you spend other people`s cash, you tend to be more carelesss. No argument there. Remember, I`m not making a `big government` argument, here. I`ve been beating the Gomery issue to death partly because I`m disgusted with the behaviour of the Liberals and their profligacy with our money.
I agree with you: free markets are the most rich. No argument there.
The reason Ethiopia was even included in this was because it was one of the few states where the government has completely withered away. Honestly, it`s hard to find a western society that would want to make the leap to libertarianism....and I think that`s why it is alluring: it is hard to dispute a theoretical model when no working model is available.
I`m not suggesting that lawlessness is the aim or goal of libertarianism~only that lawlessness is the natural outcome. Lisa, if all people were reasonable human beings like yourself, I have no doubt that libertarianism would take off, but you aren`t representative of the most deadly members that exist in any society. Fundamentalists in Iraq, HA in Canada, IRA in NI, Yakuza in Japan...But not only the extreme fringes of society. In a libertarian society, there will be ample opportunity to take advantage of a power vacuum that will emerge.
Lisa, maybe I`m a big softie (hmm, probably not) but strangers have done a lot more for you and I than simply respect our lives and property and I think that`s a pretty grim minimum to ask of each other. I`m not stating that we have to give huge portions of our income to the government like we do now, but I hope that at some point we can at least see that in some alternative universe we might not have what gifts we have been bestowed. We could easily have become (and still might become) the needy, despite our best efforts to avoid it.
Hmmm. Escaping Canada is always an option. But if Libertarians are living in Canada, they are accepting social services for free if they are not paying taxes. And increasing the burden of taxes on others while accepting free goods sounds like the exact thing that libertarians hate about government: the appearance of a free lunch.
I included the example of the Depression because it showed that at the time that society had in a very basic way shifted away from an extended family that could subsist independently in hard times. Again, society had changed and the government was reacting to a market for a social net.
Okay, I understand the animosity towards government effectiveness many cases....But again: governments that cannot deliver higher standards of living can be ditched.
Look at Turkey: it has an obstensibly anti-western, anti american but democratic government. In an effort to improve the standard of living in turkey, the government has been pushing for acceptance into the EU by pushing a pro market agenda.
Anyways, thanks for your comments.
You kept it all above the waist
;)
Patrick;
See my comment
and also my most recent post. Thanks for the inspiration!
Patrick, I was hoping to leave a comment to your post on Shamrocks, but unfortunately, blogger is coming up with an error message, so I am leaving the comment here.
I see you have removed the London Fog from your blogroll. Why do you keep 'censoring' those that do not agree with you? You may not agree with me Patrick, but that is all the more reason to keep discussion going. Indeed, if we are as rabid in our approach as you seem to suggest, then let us speak and make fools of ourselves. Instead, you fail to address my particular concerns and stomp off saying your feelings are hurt.
Like I said in my previous comment, I never at meant any ill-will toward you and indeed, you should take it as a sign of respect that I have spent as much time responding to your arguments as I have. And I will say it again, with all due respect, you do not at all seem to understand what I am trying to say - clearly I don't understand what you are trying to say either.
Perhaps if you settled down a little and were not so quick to take offense, we might perhaps get to the root of the disagreement and thus have a meaningful discussion. As it is right now, you're talking about oranges and I, apples.
You say that the majority of people don't support libertarianism, and that we need a central government to prevent chaos. I say then that the majority of people do not respect my property and freedom if they support government.
You also say that libertarians and people in general are not barbaric, but your reasoning is such that you are committed to that exact view. After all, if people are generally peaceful, then why is government needed? Cannot people be trusted to organize their themselves, through voluntary and binding contracts, which includes setting up effective security measures to deal with thieves and murderers?
As for these small violent elements, well, we're talking about centralized government here as far as I am concerned. The state is a favorite haven for criminals; through organized coercion and violence, they rule the people.
The ballot box is also no indication that most people support the government. In fact, more power is given to fools than would otherwise be possible. And your post citing Kyrgyzstan does nothing to prove that libertarianism would result in chaos and also does nothing to prove your point that the "absence of a centralized government always results in chaos." Further, there is no indication that the majority of people there supported the regime change or indeed centralized government. Perhaps the majority, over time, would support a free society - we're so used to government intervention and rule that we have become complacent. We also have little means to protect and organize ourselves against the mighty state which has the monopoly over defense. This is another reason I fear governments, which are made up of self-proclaimed guardians of the 'collective interest', whatever the hell that is.
And as for my comment about 'enlightenment', I clearly was not suggesting we set up 're education camps.' If you have considered my previous posts and comments, this should have been clear. I only meant that people cannot change their views overnight and that if they value peace and want a good life, they will learn by example and reference to reality and logic - further, if crooks are prevented from getting a free ride, then they will have to play fair or suffer the consequences of their actions. If people were to understand that government makes us all poorer, then most of us would prefer a libertarian society. However, this is all really besides the point - governments are inherently unjust and for that reason, I do not support the state. I don't support legalized plunder. Social custom and majority preference is not morality. People are free to think and prefer what they will, but not at the expense of another's well being.
I brought up the fascist example in the context of your Kyrgyzstan post for two reasons. First, I doubt you would say that Nazi's were right because they had the support of 'the majority.' However, at the same time, you keep bringing up the will of the people as the sanction of government, democratic or otherwise. Well, if people can be entrusted to choose their government, then clearly they should be able to govern themselves, through voluntary membership, without the might arm of the state. A 'power vacuum' exists because people are not given the right to govern themselves and accomstomed to centralized control - it is my view that power should not be centralized, but dispersed throughout in order to prevent tyrannies. That is to say, give power back to the individual - free him from the shackles of government.
Centralized governments are made up of the very people that you and I would find a threat Patrick. And yes, some governments are more just than others, but in essence, corrupt by definition. And the kind of voluntary membership I would like to see happening does not occur in democractic elections in the form that we know them. My membership and vote should in on way limit the rights of others.
Please read my post again and seriously consider what I am trying to argue. Better yet, read some of the authors I recommended - they say it so much better than I.
Regards to you Patrick and best wishes.
AMEN LISA,
A woman that is an Objectivist is a rare thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home