Posted on 06/14/2013 5:02:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Why are there no libertarian countries?"
In a much-discussed essay for Salon magazine, Michael Lind asks: "If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?"
Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.
Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don't harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign, he is the captain of himself.
It's true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here's an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America's great, but it ain't perfect. Sweden's social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.
Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They're ideals. They're goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.
In the old Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and today's North Korea, they tried to move toward the ideal communist system. Combined, they killed about 100 million of their own people. That's a hefty moral distinction right there: When freedom-lovers move society toward their ideal, mistakes may be made, but people tend to flourish. When the hard left is given free reign, millions are murdered and enslaved. Which ideal would you like to move toward?
Lind sees it differently. "If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried ..."
What an odd standard. You know what else is a complete failure? Time travel. After all, it's never succeeded anywhere!
What's so striking about the Lind standard is how thoroughly conservative it is.
Pick a date in the past, and you can imagine someone asking similar questions. "Why should women have equal rights?" some court intellectual surely asked. "Show me anywhere in the world where that has been tried." Before that, "Give the peasants the right to vote? Unheard of!"
In other words, there's a first time for everything.
It's a little bizarre how the left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress. The idea that rulers -- be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos or wonkish bureaucrats -- are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man's discovery of fire by millennia. And yet, we're always told that the latest rationalization for increased state power is the "wave of the future."
That phrase, "the wave of the future," became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another -- fascism, communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn't progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These "waves of the future" were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.
The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it's still unfolding.
Indeed, what's remarkable about all of the states Lind identifies as proof that libertarianism doesn't work are in fact proof that it does. What made the American experiment new were its libertarian innovations, broadly speaking. Moreover, those innovations made us prosper. Even Sweden -- the liberal Best in Show -- owes its successes to its libertarian concessions.
I'm actually not a full-blown libertarian myself, but it's an ideal I'd like America to move closer to, not further away from as we've been doing of late -- bizarrely in the name of "progress" of all things.
BTW, that 'within the family' bit is a clear throwback to tribalism
Weasel Word Name Games by Salon
Totalitarianism in all it’s forms is EVIL. Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorship. ALL EVIL.
The Left’s argument is that the “right people” have not tried their plan of government yet.
Great article. While I don’t self-identify as a Libertarian, I find most of their beliefs to be on-the-level. I also agree that since “Libertarianism” as an ethos has never truly been tried, we really should consider an implementation instead of bemoaning it as anarchistic.
As far as “rights” go, as ensconced in our Constitution, the Founders truly did believe in the self-sufficiency of the American people, and if that means that they’re out there getting stoned, firing machine guns into mountains, and surviving off of the land, what business does government have telling them they can’t? Are they harming anyone? Are they costing taxpayers money? Are they endangering anyone but themselves? That, my friends, is a right. If it can’t be taken away by men but could mean your own death or maiming, we jokingly call that a “Darwin Award Candidate,” but that truly is the idea of a right granted by God. Let them thin the herd naturally.
“You know what else is a complete failure? Time travel. After all, it’s never succeeded anywhere!”
Anywhere when?
Lately, I get the feeling that no one can ever be absolutely sure of anything.
You have to remember, mua, Libertarianism does not specific require or otherwise reference a deity. They are agnostic for all intents and purposes. You’re talking about Christian traditions wherein life is sacred, something that most of us have understood in one form or another.
That’s one big reason I don’t self-identify as a Libertarian. I believe in the sanctity of life, and while they don’t implicitly deny that sanctity, they don’t explicitly proclaim it either.
The true political spectrum defines hard left as the "totalitarian state" and the hard right as "Anarchy".
The basis of this is personal freedom versus the all powerful controlling leftist totalitarian state in it's many incarnations, including fascism, socialism and communism. The state of complete and total freedom, where there is no law and no controlling governing authority is the state of anarchy.
The centrist position is a constitutionally governed republic - the equal rule of law for all. This is the conservative position. Not too much government power, and just enough to prevent a breakdown of society leading to complete anarchy.
Libertarianism is a valid political position as it offsets the socialist left. However as a political model it lacks the cohesive force necessary to assemble proper governance. It is the party of "GET OFF MY LAWN" and the political equivelant to herding cats. That's why there are no true libertarian states, IMHO.
The left has a much better chance of assembling a coordinated political effort, there's always someone trying to control others, so there's no shortage of corrupt candidates for leaders, even if it is over a cliff. Thus, the obama regime.
We need to go back to our FOUNDING PRINCIPLES and if you or anyone else wants to live under LIBERALtarianism or communism or sharia... go somewhere else. We must have a religious and moral society and the “if it feels good do it” philosophy of libertarians will fail us as miserably as the liberal cancer that is eating us alive today. If I have to give my life for Freedom and Liberty... it will be in honor of Washington, Hale, Jefferson and men of that caliber and their vision of America and what she stands for.
LLS
I don't know about that .... many mornings I wake up and have the distinct feeling I'm back in the late 1970's experiencing the failures of the Carter Administration all over again.
Dunno. I always figured Hong Kong was pretty libertarian. Even the PRC doesn’t fool with it much, ‘cause it makes ‘em so much money.
Very well stated. I hate to admit it but at the age of 59 I’ve become completely lost in this “Political Spectrum” business. And my wife is even more lost. Seems when I was in school they taught the Political Spectrum as a circle with Centrist Capitalist Democracy at the twelve o’clock, Republicans at the 1:00 o’clock and Democrats at 11:00. Socialists were at 9:00 and Conservatives were at 3:00. Communists were at 7:00 and Fascists were at 5:00.
Note: I don’t recall Anarchists or Nihlists anywhere on the clock.
My problem with all this is that “Progressives” weren’t on the clock and yet, while they speak of themselves as being Liberal, i.e. 9:00 o’clock, they behave like Fascists. Its gotten very confusing to me.
Finally I would add that the pure Libertarian state will never happen because the World is run by a global elite which must exercize at a minimum, a modicum of control over its subjects. And it appears, since the days of the Rockefellers and now of course, the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/Krupps, Ford Foundation etc., they seek to maximise control rather than loosen the reigns.
And--it is dependent upon the capitalist world outside Sweden for its existence and its economic stability.
These United States started out as a Libertarian experiment. Communist are ever patient, and through time (i.el, the frog on slow boil), always, always manage to find a way to get their camel’s nose in the tent.
The U.S. Constitution was constructed in such a way as to slow progressive’s eventual encroachment, but Progressives have taken advantage of the Interstate Commerce Act as it was never intended. Now American is gone forever. Only secession will begin the Libertarian experiment again, and new barriers must be constructed to stymie these bastards from their power crazed, Godless wanton control of the populace.
Libertarianism ain’t that great either. Most Libertarians I met are rigid ideologues. Either you’re 100% for them or your against them. They do not tolerate dissent in the Party ranks. It’s like talking to die-hard Marxists but in reverse. They will never succeed as a 3rd Party since they could never accept compromise. I spent 1 year at Hillsdale when it was dominated by Libertarians, I was denounced as a Cuban Communist because I argued that it’s ok for government to pay for roads. The Libertarian Red Guards would harass me all over the campus and they would hold group sessions in classrooms to discuss my so-called rabid communist viewpoints. Even some professors got in on the act by explaining in their lectures how government-funded roles can lead all drivers down the path of serfdom.
And therein lies the crux of the conflict between the Left and the Right in the USA and the rest of the world today.
Extreme libertarianism is as ludicrous as any other extremist political philosophy. But applied in moderation — the way the Founders had in mind — it is a glorious compromise between community and individual, with ample respect for both and a clear commitment to the latter over the former.
There has never been a government that has not increased in power at the expense of its citizens. The Founders were smart enough to perceive that andtried their best to hold it in check . But they assumed both a moral populace and a moral administration, which obviously did not anticipate the sociopathic corruption of men like barack obama and bill clinton.
Great article. I’ve long been bugged by the notion that the march to totalitarianism and slavery is “progress” and why any sane person would buy into it.
There has never been a government that has not increased in power at the expense of its citizens. The Founders were smart enough to perceive that andtried their best to hold it in check ...
...fine as is...
But they assumed both a moral populace and a moral administration...
...if they assumed a moral administration, does that not contradict your prior point? Clearly, with checks and balances, they assumed just the opposite...
did not anticipate the sociopathic corruption of men like barack obama and bill clinton.
...true of course, but intellectual honesty demands the acknowledgement of political corruption preceding both these goofballs...
Hey LLS, c’mon man, you know me. I’ve never espoused any of the so-called virtues of Libertarianism. I’m a Constitutional Conservative through and through and completely agree with you. Our Founders knew that a faith in God and a morality in the same vein is crucial to our survival.
We’ve strayed so far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.