Replies

The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained. By definition, a “social order” is what makes a “society.” In short, arguments of the proper type of government and proper “social order” are arguments about what should be the proper type of “society.”

Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups. Such a philosophy is, indeed, laudable, but fraught with potential pitfalls. Not the least of the many practical pitfalls is where to draw the limits when valid, individual rights come into conflict.

The classic case of conflict of individual liberties is the individual enjoyment of private property. If a neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her property involves an activity that impairs the enjoyment of my property, whose rights are to be paramount? For example, suppose my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, but I enjoy peace and quiet. Must my neighbor cease enjoying his or her right to do whatever he or she chooses on his or her own property so that I can enjoy whatever I choose on my own property? The foregoing is but one of many potential conflicts in individual liberties and rights that must be balanced.

Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles. The quarrel then becomes on what principles should this coercive power be founded and exactly how should that coercive force be wielded. With this concession, the pure libertarian is in the same “philosophical boat” with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

A pure libertarian could never philosophically support socialism, Marxism, monarchism, feudalism, fascism, or even unlimited democracy. Each of these systems of government (and, in some cases, economy) can allow, and have allowed in the past, the state to trample the liberty of individual. Therefore, the pure libertarian, it appears, can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution. Further, a pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice. Unfortunately, another of those pesky, practical, pitfalls appears, again.

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual. However, what type of regulation and how much is appropriate? Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

Inevitably, the argument returns to what should be the proper type of “society.” “Societies,” it seems, have some principles of their own that must be observed. For example, a society that discourages, or at least, fails to encourage its citizens to procreate is doomed to collapse from an eventual lack of population. Therefore, a government supporting a society must encourage, or, minimally, not discourage, the production of new potential citizens.

Yet, again, another conundrum arises for a pure libertarian. Gay marriage would seem to be an individual liberty choice on the face of the issue. However, the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially the “society” in which the libertarian would exist. Does the pure libertarian take the position of saying the government should not be involved in the issue and allow such advocacy to potentially weaken the “society” to the point of collapse, and with it, his or her liberties? Alternately, does the libertarian take the position that limits must be emplaced on individual liberty for the continued existence of a society of limited liberties?

Another problem of “societies” is that a certain percentage of the population must, of necessity, be “productive” or the entire population starves and the “society,” again, collapses. Whether and individual chooses to abuse his or her body with hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs appears, on the surface, to be purely and individual liberty choice. However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation. Consequently, a libertarian is, again, faced with the choice or risking loss of his own liberties due to the collapse of a “society” which would support a government protecting them. Alternately, the libertarian must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior.

The modern Libertarian (note the capital letter) Party seems to have ill-defined concepts of how to balance individual liberty with the requirements of a stable “society” that remains capable of supporting and protecting those very liberties IMHO.

Nice analysis of the hard choices that have to be made by any party and every individual. I expect the current Libertarian party like any other party has diversity of opinion on many of the issues you bring up. What they have lacked is some specific national issues upon which they can demonstrate some pragmatic approaches that spark enough interest on the part of the other two parties. Like any party, then need to first get their hands dirty by winning elections. And if elected, you know they'll have to really get their hands dirty by administering the very gorvernment they seek to restrain.

"The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained."

Of course, for a libertarian, the desired social order is, as you described, simply one in which a man is free to do anything that does not infringe the freedom of another. My personal twist on it is that the primary, and almost the only, function of the state is to protect liberty, since anything else it does tends to infringe that liberty. That's my personal philosophy, but even I recognize that the definition is broad enough to allow quite a bit of interpretation, as you noted.

Regarding capitalism and monopolies, my belief is that large companies tend to enlist the aid of government in their efforts at becoming monopolies...likely they'd be much less successful at it otherwise. Marxbites posted a couple interesting articles on the subject recently. Otherwise, I'm willing to accept the need for antitrust laws, though they give the state a large a opportunity for abuse.

"Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government."

There may be some truth in that, but it's like saying that the USA is lumped together with differing forms of govenment. We are becoming that as we abandon our tradtions of liberty, but weren't always.

"However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation."

No, I don't think so, people, with some exceptions, will be productive, to varying degrees. The need to accomplish is innate; the need to survive cannot be denied. It's only when the state becomes involved, an example being our welfare state, that entire segments of the population become unproductive and inactive. The same goes for procreation, I've noticed a pretty strong drive for that exists in most of us.

I lean pretty strongly to libertarian views, but prefer to call myself a classical liberal, since I'm generally a believer that the codification of some tradtional rules of conduct are justified. Many of them, like the idea that marriage is between man and woman are there for good reason.

Capitalism does not lead inevitably to monopoly. Except in the short term, a monopoly can only exist if it is supported by the government, which is not capitalism, unless that monopoly continuously reduces its prices, raises its wages and the price that it pays for its materials, which is a good thing, others will enter the market and compete, either with the same products at lower prices, or alternative products.