Laissez-Faire Republic vs. Reactionary Socialists

The Frederic Bastiat Interversity online editorials ^ | August 18,2002 | Eddie Willers

[ewillers]

The other day I was asked to comment on something called "laissez-faire socialism" and what I thought about American conservatism as a political ideology. This was my response.

"Laissez-Faire socialism" is a contradiction in terms. Socialism involves government ownership and control over industry and under pure socialism each and every citizen is owned by the collective and has no rights -- only whatever the government decides to give him or her. Work becomes compulsory for each and all (see Marx's Communist Manifesto's ten planks). Under hard-core socialism, all economic activity is rigidly controlled by a clique of central planners in the state bureaucracy. It is the institutionalization of total coercion. The government does not leave peaceful people alone but manages and controls their lives from cradle to grave.

By contrast, a Laissez-Faire Republic recognizes and protects each person's right to run his own life and spend or save his own earnings as he sees fit. The private property rights of the people are respected and protected. Industry is owned and operated privately, not by political bureaucrats. The economy is a free-market society -- i.e., a society in which people deal with one another on a voluntary basis if they choose to deal with others at all. It is a free society, a culture in which peaceful individuals are free from coercive interference in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relations.

Laissez faire means "to leave alone" -- meaning that peaceful (non-violent) citizens are essentially left alone by government so that they have the freedom to run their lives and spend their earnings as they see fit. It is only when a person turns criminal by initiating violence against the person, liberty, or property of others that he or she comes under the government's proper control.

In America, a "conservative" is someone who is for less government neddling in peoples' lives, and especially less government intervention in the economy. They are more or less in the tradition of classical liberalism which informed the founding of the United States as reflected in the Coinstitution and the Bill of Rights. The problem with many modern conservatives is that they make exceptions to their overall program of less government, such as the so-called "War on Drugs" etc. Also, the label "conservative" has become somewhat of a rubber term and some people call themselves conservatives when they actually are more "left" (statist-collectivist) than they are "right" (individualist-libertarian) when you examine their positions on specific issues.

Also, because of widespread ideologicaol confusion today, it is important to point out that the word "conservative" (an ideological term) does not mean the same thing as "Republican" (member of the Republican Party). Although many Republicans are also conservatives, there are also many Republicans who are "moderates" or "liberals" or even socialists. Some conservatives are members of the U.S. Taxpayers Party led by Howard Philips, and some are members of the Libertarian Party, and some are either "independents" or not affiliated with any political organization.

But, in general conservatives do favor less government over our lives, and in that respect they are to be prefered by libertarians over the much more statist American "liberals" (welfare-state / corporate-state regulatory fascists), who stole the term "liberal" and have been using it since at least FDR's New Deal. Today's "liberal" Democrats represent a mixture of the left-wing ideologies of socialism, fascism and pragmatism.

A libertarian is someone who has taken a solemn pledge not to initiate the use of violence against anyone for any reason, and who consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone, including the government. This means that libertarians advocate a Laissez-Faire Republic, a government constitutionally limited to protecting the rights of peaceful people from criminals or foreign aggressors. The government's job is to combat the use of coercion in society, not to control, regulate, interfere with, subsidize, or otherwise meddle with peoples' private affairs or voluntary (maket) relationships. In such a system, government control is for criminals, not regular folk.

The "left" in this country is in the tradition of Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, DeLeon, LaFollette, Chomsky, LaRouche, and other socialist crackpots whose notions have been thoroughly discredited, both in theory and in practice.

Libertarianism is in the classical liberal tradition of Lilburne, Locke, Pitt, Adam Smith, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Calhoun, Spencer, Bastiat, MIses, and Ayn Rand. Because of their greater consistency to the principle of Laissez Faire, libertarians are sometimes seen as "conservatives on steroids" because they are more hard core! In America at least (since America's constitutional traditions originated in classical liberal / libertarian instituitons and principles), libertarians are to the "right" of conservatives, and in fact are the ultimate right. (Also, some libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party; others are not.)

The opposite of libertarianism (laissez faire) is full socialism (total government control). With laissez faire, you get diversity, protection of private property rights, and freedom. With socialism, you get no respect for private property rights, chronic shortages and long lines at the government monopoly stores, slave labor camps, mass murder, and tyranny. The most hard-core socialist regimes -- those countries where socialists went the farthest in practice to impose socialism on the people despite its incompatibility with man's nature -- are or have been Cuba, North Korea, Red China under Mao and Chou, and the Soviet Union under the Bolsheviks. Those left-wing experiments of the Twentieth Century resulted in the liquidation of hundreds of millions of human beings and the massive confiscation of their properties by the political state.

Libertarianism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I hope that helps. I saw nothing on the new site that struck me as particularly challenging ideologically. Indeed, the writer seems to be trying to combine some incompatible ideas and seems to be coming from some false premises and junk science about the need to coerce the market (people) to use hydrogen fuel cells rather than freeing up the market for energy generally. He seems to want the reader to believe there is some kind of conspiracy to keep people from using hydrogen, yet I know of no laws or regulations which would keep any person or company from using hydrogen fuel cells if they thought they were more cost effective than the present alternatives. As a libertarian, I am for total deregulation of all energy sources and industries, and am opposed to any special subsidy or government encouragement to any special energy interest. I recommend the following links for further eludication of these terms and concepts:

www.cliches.org

How Libertarians Are Different

[ewillers]

I am posting this to elicit comments and stimulate thought. I have discovered that there seems to be a great deal of ideological confusion in America today 00 although I must say that most Freepers are probably far less ideologically mixed up than the average non0Freeper. Too many don't seem to know their left from their right. It is kind of like someone trying to watch a football game without knowing the rules, which team is which, how to keep score, or the jargon used.

So, I am posting this because of the attempt to make clear distinctions between different points of view. It is almost always to the advantage of the dishonest and less rational side of any debate to "muddy the waters" by blurring the distinctions of the two positions and their arguments so that people may be ocnfused. This short piece seeks to address that by setting the record straight.

[aynrandfreak]

great article & thanks for the link to the ten planks!

[f.Christian]

Libertarians are anarchists...liberal lites---mobacrats who don't like crowds---loners/loons!

[fporretto]

Let's not make libertarians sound all that interchangeable, shall we? Especially since there's a continuing doctrinal squabble in the community about things like the authority of the Constitution, military affairs, border control, coercive taxation, and the extent of Washington's legitimate power to make agreements with the governments of other countries.

There are at least four sub-families within the libertarian envelope:

• The anarcho-capitalists are opposed to all non-consensual government, and their definition of "consensual" is an unyielding one: No coercion, except of those convicted of coercive or fraudulent acts themselves.
• The ultraminarchists are willing to let governments do a little "night watchman" work -- protect the borders, insure the peace of the streets, and run the courts -- but are unwilling to have it funded coercively.
• The minarchists are with the ultraminarchists on what governments should be allowed to do, but also concede that they ought to be able to tax coercively for the support of those activities (and no others).
• The constitutionalists are willing to settle for the rigorous observation of the Constitution as written, holding that, in a regime where the government's powers are specified and delimited by charter, excesses will eventually be curbed as consensus develops and corrects its errors.

And of course, when you have doctrinal differences, you have people screaming at one another that "You can't be a libertarian if you believe that!"

Yes, the origins of contemporary libertarianism may be found in eighteenth and nineteenth century classical liberalism: John Locke, Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, and the rest. But these gentlemen would have disagreed among themselves on several points. They would surely have disagreed with modern libertarians as well.

Who's right? Who's wrong? On what topics? These questions are only "answerable," if at all, by the test of history. Pure logic is insufficient to persuade most people to change their positions on most political subjects.

A final thought for my libertarian brethren: The United States, though not explicitly libertarian in its present incarnation, retains much of its libertarian heritage, and remains closer to the ideals of freedom than any other country on Earth. We have a good, if blemished, track record for solving our problems and resolving our disputes without bloodshed. You might not like much of what you see in current law and governmental practice. But we could do with a lot less wrangling, both within and without the community.

As for the excesses in rhetoric that have blotted the public image of libertarian thought: a famous socialist, Norman Thomas, when confronted with the rash of America-hatred that accompanied the antiwar protests of the Sixties and early Seventies, advised us all: "Clean the Flag, don't burn it." It was very good advice.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[mlocher]

In America, a "conservative" is someone who is for less government neddling in peoples' lives, and especially less government intervention in the economy. They are more or less in the tradition of classical liberalism which informed the founding of the United States as reflected in the Coinstitution and the Bill of Rights.

thanks for the post. the above is a very profound couple of sentences. conservatives are liberals! the meaning of the two words have been twisted severely over the last 3 or 4 centuries and as politics crossed the atlantic. this is an excellent find, and speaks of the double-speak in the democrat party's language. we really need to use the terms 'socialist' and 'capitalist' to be less ambiguous.

The problem with many modern conservatives is that they make exceptions to their overall program of less government

most conservatives, like our founding fathers, follow the moral law of the bible as it pertains to the temporal life here on earth. they believe that there is place in government to enforce a sense of social order that is consistent with the commandments.

libertarians are to the "right" of conservatives, and in fact are the ultimate right.

in some cases this is true. sometimes however, libertarian policies closely line up with that of the liberal socialists (democrats), especially when the social order dictated in the biblical moral law is not viewed as convenient or relevant.

[ewillers]

Thanks for the comments! Well, even though there are differences among libertarians on some issues, they all have something in common; otherwise, you would not be able to identify a libertarian at all. What we all have in common is that we all oppose the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone against anyone else.

You are right that I do not regard so-called "anarcho-libertarians" as real libertarians. They are folks who are confused because they fail to make disctinction between Market entities (which do not involve the use of coercion at all as such) and Coercive entities, and they advocate what we already have and have always already had since year one in the world as a whole: competing governments or gangs. There is nothing in that which limits coercion to its proper role (protecting peaceful people from crime and retaliating against those who violate the rights of peaceful folk). They do not really address the problem of restricting coercion to its proper and just uses. There is no such thing as a constitutional anarchy. It is merely advocating what amounts to what we already have got on the world level.

The only theoretical anarchist libertarian I ever knew was Robert LeFevre and that is because he rejected all coercion (both initiatory and retaliatory) and was therefore a pacifist (although he never referred to himself as an "anarcho-pacifist"). In fact he made no disctinction between initiatory and retalaitory coercion and rejected the classical liberal idea that one loses (forfeits) at least some of his right to be left alone when he initiates violence against others. While all pacifists, by definition, may be seen as libertarians, the vast majority of libertarians are not pacifists, rejecting as they do only initiatory coercion.

Minarchists, strictly speaking, are good American conservatives but not libertarians. They advocate LESS of what we have now (which is going in the right direction). Libertarians advocate laissez faire as a strict straitjacket policy, a system which is different in kind rather than merely one differing only in extent or degree from what we have now. The Laissez-Faire Republic is the ultimate ideal republic toward which to strive. In the meantime I side with conservatives in trying to cut what we've got.

Yes, there are debates and disagreements among ourselves as to the correct implications of the libertarian position, especially in matters of foreign policy; but, there still needs to be something fundamental in common (i.e., the Non-Aggression Principle) amlng all libertararians. If the only thing that libertarians have in common is they all want "less government" then that makes us no different from American conservatives IMO.

[ewillers]

Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, it's bad enough that libertarians might be lumped in with black flag-waiving anarchists, but it is beyond the pale that libertarians should be confused with the socialist left when full socialism ("communism") is the opposite of the Laissez-Faire Republic which we advocate. Any libertarians who understands what the word libertarian means rejects each of the ten planks in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto because they are all leftist aims. I say repeal them all!

[ewillers]

libertarians are to the "right" of conservatives, and in fact are the ultimate right.

"in some cases this is true. sometimes however, libertarian policies closely line up with that of the liberal socialists (democrats), especially when the social order dictated in the biblical moral law is not viewed as convenient or relevant."

Give me an example where libertarians "line up with" liberal Demokrats. Libertarians base their positions, ideally, on an over-riding set of principles. Today's Democrats 00 who stole the word "liberal" decades ago (leaving the classical liberals in the U.S. with the term "conservative" by default)-- are a mixture of socialism, fascism, welfare statism, and short-sighted pragmatism. If libertarians happen to share a position, which I think would be rare, it would only be by accident it seems to me.

[ewillers]

Thanks for that quote from Norman Thomas. "Clean the flag -- don't burn it!" I want to make it clear that although I am an arch enemy of socialism and communism, this is one of those rare points on which I agree with socialist Norman Thomas. And it points up another reason why I think a few in the libertarian movement have taken a wrong turn by embracing a fraudulent "anarchism" that would burn the flag and replace it with a black one. That is not how to win friends and influence people in a positive way toward the cause of liberty. And, contrary to what they would have us believe, it is not an issue of being "consensual" at all. A criminal is not likely to consent in being incarcerated or having a fine imposed on him by force of law. Criminals generally run away from the scene of the crime BECAUSE they don't want to get caught! They do not consent to any interference.

Also, merely calling a vigilante gang or turf gang a "market agency" does not make it one, whether it is called Murray's Anarcho-Fascist Insurgency Association (MAFIA) or the KKK or the Black Panther Potty (which has killed people without trial or due process). A state by any other name still smells the same. If it uses violence to accomplish its ends -- if it seeks to restrain criminals against their wills, coercively impose penalties on them against their will, imprison or execute them against their will, or fine them against their will, it is not a market agency but a political one. (And there is nothing in "anarcho-capitalism" that makes for following of due process or even recognizing the rights of self and property of peaceful people.) If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, likes water like a duck . . . . Fortunately, most libertarians have not fallen for this "anarcho" libertarianism, and the few who have did so mainly because of the influence of the late Murray Rothbard, who moved away from that position prior to his death.

The U.S. has the classical liberal / libertarian heritage to build on. Better to bring it into greater consistency with its own traditions of private property, free markets, rule of law, and laissez faire than to tear it down and lose what is left of respect for law and those rights and traditions which gave Americans more freedom than others in the past. Constitutionalism was not a failed experiement. It worked in practice for a ong time before it was undercut by its enemies. It should be improved, not abandoned.

Yes, clean the flag, don't burn it.

[mlocher]

Give me an example where libertarians "line up with" liberal Demokrats.

drugs, and marijuana particularly. i realize that both parties allow a lot of wiggle room on this issue. many libertarians believe that a government banning drugs is one takes away a civil liberty. at the local level, demokrats are pushing for easing many drug laws and statutes in slow, subtle but effective means. in fact, many cities have already make marijuana legal or have made the crime of smoking it one punishable with a $5 fine.

[ewillers]

Give me an example where libertarians "line up with" liberal Demokrats.

drugs, and marijuana particularly.

Almost, but not quite. Actually, most Democrats are NOT for legalization / decriminalization of marijuana. Check the Democrats in Congress and you will see that most of them support the "War on Drugs" including pot.

I myself have never smoked pot (or tobacco for that matter). Probably most libertarians do not. But, like Prohibition against alcohol, which was so unsuccessful, the war against pot is a no-win war and waste of resources. A free society requires people of self-responsibility and self-restraint. Let Darwin take care of the rest.

I would also point out that socialists and communistgs typically advocate all sorts of personal liberties 00 including drug use and freedom of speech 00 BEFORE they get into power, and then they clamp down and rescind thoswe freedoms. This is what Lenin did in Russia after he took over. So, their temporary position in favor of some selective personal liberties is merely a tactic, not a genuine principle with them.

Libertarians believe that government has no business acting in loco parentis for adults of sound mind. Contrary to what you may think, a free society builds individuals of strong moral character and integrity. Natural selection takes care of the rest. Meanwhile, the government's "War on Drugs" empowers low-life gangs and street punks, who would have to work for a living if illicit drugs did not have high Black Market prices because of being illegal. And fewer cops would be tempted toward corruption. And far fewer innocent people would be caught in the crossfire.

[fporretto]

From my post:

And of course, when you have doctrinal differences, you have people screaming at one another that "You can't be a libertarian if you believe that!"

From your post:

You are right that I do not regard so-called "anarcho-libertarians" as real libertarians.

You "do not regard"? And again from your post:

Minarchists, strictly speaking, are good American conservatives but not libertarians.

"Strictly speaking"? According to what authority?

Why do you regard it as desirable to discourage people -- people such as David Friedman, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Julian Simon, Ludwig von Mises, and myself (a former State Chair of the Libertarian Party of New York) -- from labeling themselves libertarians, when the differences between their convictions and yours are properly a matter for discussion and debate among generally like-minded souls? Why do you think it desirable that there be fewer persons who label themselves as devotees of freedom?

I encourage minarchist-constitutionalist conservatives to self-identify as libertarians, because it's a way of getting them to recognize that what matters most to them is freedom. I encourage anarchists to self-identify as libertarians, because it's a way of getting them to think about why they detest the State, and to converse with others who can abet their understanding. There's no need to draw a circle around ourselves so small that we look like some sort of cult. Among other grievous consequences, it makes us look like arrogant know-it-alls who are convinced that we have all the answers -- an appearance that has bedeviled the liberty movement for many years, and which we must slough if we're to have any chance of advancing the cause of freedom in our lifetimes.

You treat the Non-Aggression Axiom as if it came down from Mount Sinai on a tablet of stone. In a world where murderous fanatics and sociopathic dictators seek weapons of mass destruction to use against those they hate -- us -- the Non-Aggression Axiom needs some serious work. John Hospers, the godfather of modern libertarianism, was candid about this. For my part, I do not want to have to explain to the families of millions of victims of atomic, biological, or chemical terrorism why we couldn't strike first, when we saw the blade swinging for our necks. Even the great majority of persons to whom you would allow the libertarian label would agree that nominal "aggression" in these circumstances is fully justified, by moral principles that have as much claim to authority as the Non-Aggression Axiom.

I'll grant that some commonalities must exist among us. In particular, we have to regard the preservation of the maximum possible degree of individual liberty as the chief aim of government -- if, indeed, we endorse the concept of government at all. But to insist on absolute doctrinal conformity -- and to a questionable principle, at that -- as the requirement for adopting the most benign family label in all of politics is going much too far. It killed the Randians, and it would kill us as well.

So please, be a little more generous, and a little less ready to rule others "out of the family" just because you disagree with them.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[PGalt]

Good post & explanation of post.

[ewillers]

Thanks for the comments. A libertarian is not merely someone who calls himself a libertarian. I have given the definition. If the shoe fits, so be it; if not, then it should be pointed out.

You write: "Why do you think it desirable that there be fewer persons who label themselves as devotees of freedom?"

I think it more desirable for people to be libertarians than merely to use a label. I can call myself a Cuban, but that does not automatically make me a Cuban. I might arbitrarily call myself a communist, but 6hat would not be true. Words have meanings. If David Duke describes himself as a libertarian or if Hillary Clinton calls herself a libertarian, is the "good" publicity from the use of the label really worth diluting the meaning of the term? I would turn your question around and ask you why do you want to encourage people to use a label without adhering to the principles it represents?

Why do you feel the need to expand the definition of "libertarian"? Why not use the term "proto-libertarian" or "libertarian0oriented" or "conservative" or "classical liberal"? Why not use another term -- like "anti-statist" or "right wing" or "pro-freedom" which can include a broad spectrum of those who stand for less government and more individual freedom? My point is that by making the word "libertarian" a rubber term, are we not losing its meaning? I did not invent the definition, after all. The Non-Aggression Axiom was early on a standard for libertarianism and even LP membership.

Why can't we have allies without surrendering the meaning of our words? I would hate to think that in the future those who are called "libertarians" will advocate and vote for more and more statism -- in the same way that American Fabian socialists successfully stole the word "liberal" from those we now refer to as "conservatives" (or "classical liberals").

If you want to include black-flag-waiving "anarchists" who advocate what amounts to competing states as "libertarians," then would you stretch the word "libertarian" to include hard-core socialists who want to nationalize the major industries and force fit human nature into their vision of a perfect society?

[ewillers]

Thank you very much!

Besides reacting against the self-contradictory phrase "laissez-faire socialism," I wanted to try to make clear how libertarianism is different from today's American "liberalism." I imagine the use of the term "liberal" in American politics may be confusing to Europeans and South Africans and Australians because those who are now called "liberals" in the U.S. are emphatically not in the classical liberal tradition of Adam Smith, John Locke, Richard Cobden, and Frederic Bastiat . . . . For many decades those who are now called "liberals" in the U.S. have had an ideology which is a mixture of socialism, fascism, and Prussian welfare statism. They stole the term "liberal" and their dominance in the media has made that pretty much a fait accompli. Those who champion less government and more individual freedom under a constitutional republic and bill of rights are now called "conservatives" by default. Libertarianism is, in my judgement at least, the end point of classical liberal American "conservatism" in that it goes all the way to advocating pure laissez faire as the ideal toward which to strive. I would not like to see the term "libertarian" go the way of the word "liberal" (in America). Thanks, again.