Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo

Why is libertarianism wrong?

Why is libertarianism wrong?

The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated.


origins

Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it. It is specifically linked to the United States. Many libertarian texts are written by people, who know only North American political culture and society. They claim universal application for libertarianism, but it remains culture-bound. For instance, some libertarians argue by quoting the US Constitution, without apparently realising, that it is not in force outside the USA. Most online material on libertarianism contrasts it to liberalism, but this contrast is also specific the USA - where the word 'liberal' is used to mean 'left-of-centre'. Here, the word 'liberal' is used in the European sense: libertarians are a sub-category of liberals. As political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

values

The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

the claims and self-image of libertarianism

Libertarians tend to speak in slogans - "we want freedom", "we are against bureaucracy" - and not in political programmes. Even when they give a direct definition of libertarianism, it is not necessarily true.

The differences between libertarian image and libertarian reality are summarised in this table.

libertarian image libertarian reality
Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force
Image: moral autonomy of the individual Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces
Image: political freedom Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians
Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies
Image: benefits of libertarianism Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'


political structures in a libertarian society

Values do not enforce their own existence in the social world. The values of libertarianism would have to be enforced, like those of any other political ideology. These political structures would be found in most libertarian societies.

effects

The effects of a libertarian world flow from the values it enforces.

what is libertarianism?

With the values and effects listed above, the general characteristics of libertarianism can be summarised.

Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States. All political regimes have a legitimising ideology, which gives an ethical justification for the exercise of political power. The European absolute monarchies, for instance, appealed to the doctrine of legitimate descent. The King was the son of a previous King, and therefore (so the story went), entitled to be king. In turn, a comprehensive opposition to a regime will have a comprehensive justification for abolishing it. Libertarianism is not a 'revolutionary ideology' in that sense, seeking to overthrow fundamental values of the society around it. In fact, most US libertarians have a traditionalist attitude to American core values. Libertarianism legitimises primarily the free-market, and the resulting social inequalities.

Specifically libertarianism is a legitimation for the rich - the second defining characteristic. If Bill Gates wants to defend his great personal wealth (while others are starving) then libertarianism is a comprehensive option. His critics will accuse him of greed. They will say he does not need the money and that others desperately need it. They will say his wealth is an injustice, and insist that the government redistribute it. Liberalism (classic liberal philosophy) offers a defence for all these criticisms, but libertarianism is sharper in its rejection. That is not to say that Bill Gates 'pays all the libertarians'. (He would pay the Republican Party instead, which is much better organised, and capable of winning elections). Libertarianism is not necessarily invented or financed, by those who benefit from the ideology. In the USA and certainly in Europe, self-declared libertarians are a minority within market-liberal and neoliberal politics - also legitimising ideologies. To put it crudely, Bill Gates and his companies do not need the libertarians - although they are among his few consistent defenders. (Libertarians formed a 'Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft' during the legal actions against the firm).

Thirdly, libertarians are conservatives. Many are openly conservative, but others are evasive about the issue. But in the case of openly conservative libertarians, the intense commitment to conservatism forms the apparent core of their beliefs. I suggest this applies to most libertarians: they are not really interested in the free market or the non-coercion principle or limited government, but in their effects. Perhaps what libertarians really want is to prevent innovation, to reverse social change, or in some way to return to the past. Certainly conservative ideals are easy to find among libertarians. Charles Murray, for instance, writes in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 138):

The triumph of an earlier America was that it has set all the right trends in motion, at a time when the world was first coming out of millennia of poverty into an era of plenty. The tragedy of contemporary America is that it abandonned that course. Libertarians want to return to it.

Now, Murray is an easy target: he is not only an open conservative, but also a racist. (As co-author of The Bell Curve he is probably the most influential western academic theorist of racial inferiority). But most US libertarians share his nostalgia for the early years of the United States, although it was a slave-owning society. Libertarianism, however, is also structurally conservative in its rejection of revolutionary force (or any innovative force). Without destruction there can be no long-term social change: a world entirely without coercion and force would be a static world.

the real value conflicts with libertarians

The descriptions of libertarianism above are abstract, and criticise its internal inconsistency. Many libertarian texts are insubstantial - just simple propaganda tricks, and misleading appeals to emotion. But there are irreducible differences in fundamental values, between libertarians and their opponents. Because they are irreducible, no common ground of shared values exists: discussion is fruitless. The non-libertarian alternative values include these...

the alternative: what should the state do?

The fundamental task of the state, in a world of liberal market-democratic nation states, is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the 'will of the people', and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic. Libertarians reject any such draconian role for the state - but then libertarians are not the carriers of absolute truth.

These proposed 'tasks of the state' are a replacement for the standard version, used in theoretical works on public administration:

  1. to restrict tradition and heritage, to limit transgenerational culture and transgenerational community - especially if they inhibit innovation
  2. to restrict 'national values', that is the imposition of an ethnic or nation-specific morality
  3. to permit the individual to secede from the nation state, the primary transgenerational community
  4. to limit market forces, and their effects
  5. to permit the individual to secede from the free market
  6. to restrict an emergent civil society, that is, control of society by a network of elite 'actors' (businesses and NGO's)
  7. to prevent a 'knowledge society' - a society where a single worldview (with an absolute claim to truth) is uncontested .
To avoid confusion, note that they are not all directed against libertarianism: but if libertarians shaped the world, the state would do none of these things.


relevant links

Index page: liberalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Liberalism - the mainstream definitions of liberalism.

Liberal Manifesto of Oxford (1947), European political liberalism. Some elements, such as "Loyal adherence to a world organisation of all nations..." would now be rejected by the same parties.

Libertäre Ideologie - a series of articles on the libertarian ideology at the online magazine Telepolis. Even if you can not read German, it is useful as a source of links, to libertarian and related sites.

European Libertarians. The Statue of Liberty on their homepage also symbolises Atlanticism: there is no recent libertarian tradition in Europe, outside the UK. More typical of European ultra-liberal politics is the New Right economic liberalism which was at the start of the Thatcher government in Britain. See for example the Institute for Economic Studies Europe, or in central Europe the Czech Liberální Institut.

Libertarian NL, a Dutch libertarian homepage (Aschwin de Wolf). But look at the political issues, the political thinkers, and the links: the libertarian world consists primarily of the United States. In December 2000 the featured theme was an open letter to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US central bank (Federal Reserve Board). Yet this is a Dutch website, made by people who live in Europe. Their currency policy is made by European central bank chairman Wim Duisenberg, the former Netherlands central bank president. But they chose to ignore the society around them, and live as wannabe US citizens. Again, a recurrent pattern among European libertarians.

Libertarisme: De renaissance van het klassiek liberalisme by Aschwin de Wolf. This introduction to libertarianism, written for the members of the Netherlands liberal party VVD, illustrates the missionary attitude of libertarians in Europe. European liberalism has become corrupted, they claim, and must reform itself on the model of US libertarianism.

Libertarisme FAQ: explicit about the conservative effects of libertarianism: "Je zou echter wel kunnen stellen dat het libertarisme conservatief is in die zin dat zij mensen in hun waarde laat en geen progressieve experimenten door de overheid toelaat. Het libertarisme is dus heel goed verenigbaar met het koesteren van tradities of andere overgeleverde manieren van leven."

democratic expansionism: liberal market democracy itself depends on coercion, a US military invasion for example

The advantage of capitalist trucks, David Friedman

The Cathedral and the Bazaar: libertarian ideologists are switching their attention from the Internet to Open Source. This text restates a theme from classic liberal philosophy: the contrast between emergent and ideal order (market and Church).

The non-statist FAQ seems to have gone offline (December 2000).

Critiques Of Libertarianism, the best-known anti-libertarian site, but almost exclusively US-American in content.

Elfnet: O/S for a Global Brain?: a good example of the combination of New Age, computer science, and globalism in global-brain connectionism. Opens, as you might expect, with a quote from Kevin Kelly.

Multi-Agent Systems / Hypereconomy: organicist free-market ideas from Alexander Chislenko, "...a contract economy looks much like a forest ecology..."
Networking in the Mind Age: Chislenko on a network global-brain. "The infomorph society will be built on new organizational principles and will represent a blend of a superliquid economy, cyberspace anarchy and advanced consciousness". I hope it works better than his website, which crashed my browser.

Gigantism in Soviet Space: the Soviet Union's state-organised mega-projects are a horror for all liberals. They contravene almost every libertarian precept.

The Right to Discriminate, from the libertarian "Constitution of Oceania". Few libertarians are so explicit about this, but logically it fits. The Right to Own a Business also provides that "Mandatory disability benefits for transvestites, pedophiles, pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, drug addicts, and compulsive gamblers are obviously forbidden."

Virtual Canton Constitution, from the libertarian think-tank Free Nation Foundation. Although they claim to be anti-statists, libertarians write many and detailed Constitutions. This one re-appears in the generally libertarian Amsterdam 2.0 urban design project.

Serbia and Bosnia: A Foreign Policy Formulation : libertarianism solves the Bosnia problem. "I am a newcomer to foreign policy and cannot claim to understand all that matters". From the Free Nation site, which advocates a (logically inconsistent) libertarian state.

Libertarian immigration: Entirely free, but, but...."Fortunately, a truly free society would be protected by the fact that all property would be private. Only an immigrant who had permission to occupy the property of another could even enter the country. Even roads and sidewalks would be privately owned and would probably require some type of fee for entry."

Libertarian Foreign Policy, Libertarian Party of Canada. An example of the isolationism which at present characterises North American libertarianism, despite its inherent universalist character.

The Unlikeliest Cult in History



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aynrand; libertarianism; libertarians; medicalmarijuana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-445 next last
To: Exnihilo
" Reality:
libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

Because to do so is illogical. The use of the term injustice requires a definition of justice. It's inappropriate to qualify an outcome w/o knowing what the qualification refers to in the first place. Economic outcomes depend on the contracts made between the parties involved. Libertarians require that coercion be absent as a motivating force in the creation of the contract and operation toword outcome. If it's required to be absent from the beginning, the resultant economic outcome wasn't a result of coercion.

" Reality:
libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces"

That's called individual responsibility. To force the consequences of the outcome of individuals actions on others is evil. It amounts to unwarrnanted coercion.

" Reality:
some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians

Libertarians don't coerce policies. Libertarians insist that individuals have certain rights that are inviolate. They protect life and sovereignty of will. The coerce nothing, but the protection of those rights. That means that authoritarian dictates are forbidden. If other folks wish to be subject to authoritarian dictates, by their own decision, they are welcome to do so.

" Reality:
libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies

Libertarians are peaceful folks that refrain from violence, until the level of tyrany becomes unbearable. They otherwise do what they can to peaceably assert their rights.

" Reality:
libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'

Nonsense they do no such thing. Folks have the right to determine what they consider a benefit.

201 posted on 02/01/2002 11:52:23 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Please, see my thread history and don't make idiotic accusations when you clearly haven't.

I just finished looking at a sample. All I can find is rabid libertarian baiting. Can you point me to a substantive post you've made? Certainly that link will not be to this thread.

202 posted on 02/01/2002 11:52:41 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I like to call this little post "UH, OH... I Better READ it next time", otherwise known as "a study of the posts of Exnihilo, as he realizes that he has stumbled onto a communist's critique of libertarians, and posts it without reading it, only to find out he's screwed up bad, and has to backpedal furiously"

Post 23 “His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right.”

Post 26 “Then start by refuting the author's points which demonstrate repeated inconsistancies in Libertarian thinking.”

Post 43 “I find it interesting that you refuse to address any of the author's points, but instead point out what "side" he is on, as if that automatically invalidates his points. That's what I call a short-cut to thinking.”

Post 47 “I posted it for his points on Libertarianism, not his personal opinions on other matters. I wish you guys would refute his points about Libertarians..”

Post 62 “LOL! He makes specific points about Libertarians that are based in a simple observation of Libertarian rhetoric. I am getting a kick out of this..”

Post 68 “No, I don't. I selected it for the author's points on Libertarianism. Those points have yet to be refuted, except for someone to say "he's a commie!". That is not an argument.”

Post 73 “Explain why his specific statements about the contradictory nature of libertarian philosophy is wrong using libertarian philosophy! It should be easy, right?”

Post 91 “He doesn't incorporate socialism into his conclusions about Libertarians!…... Now, why is he wrong? Just refute him!”

Post 129 “Benson, I never claimed that the author's arguments are my arguments. I found his statements interesting, and I posted them.”

Post 133 “Dagny, you are aware that I didn't write the article right?”

Post 151 OWK, why do you feel that I'm back peddaling?

Hilarious.

203 posted on 02/01/2002 11:52:50 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Draw your own conclusions about me.

Based on this thread and the historical posts I've found, I already have.

204 posted on 02/01/2002 11:54:13 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Hahaha.. get real. You're typical of the frothing, knuckle dragging Libertarians that pervade so many of these threads. If I dare disagree with your politics I am "against America" and "too dim to understand" etc. This kind of pseudo-intellectual snobbery convinces nobody but your other cohorts, and does nothing to offend me. In fact, it reinforces what I already think of Libertarians.
205 posted on 02/01/2002 11:54:16 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I'm supposed to care?
206 posted on 02/01/2002 11:54:40 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I really don't understand your reasoning. If person A agrees with somethings that person B says, and person B supports policy X which person A totally disagrees with, then person A implicitly supports and agrees with policy X, and presumably everything person B says? And they say my debating skills are poor.. lol!! 174 posted on 2/1/02 12:40 PM Pacific by Exnihilo

Your support for Person B is grounded upon your mutual agreement that the State should have the Powers it requires for Policy X. You may personally oppose Policy X, but that is only because you want the Power for your own objectives... not because you really disagree with Person B on State having the Power in the first place. On the point of State having the Power you both require for your own objectives, you and the Communists you find so "illuminating" are bosom buddies.

207 posted on 02/01/2002 11:54:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Just gotta love Wranglers and Ropers and Stetsons . . .

I'm married. Several years ago, I gave Mrs. Bustard a shotgun for a Valentine's Day present. She really liked that.

As for the resume, in my case IEEE is probably a more useful entry. But if Mensa does it for you, great!

AB

208 posted on 02/01/2002 11:56:13 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I'm amazed this thread has lasted a full hour and a half.
209 posted on 02/01/2002 11:56:16 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I'm supposed to care?

I doubt it, but you're the one who told me to draw my own conclusions. No need to get so defensive, even though you've been outed as a libertarian-baiter rather than a thoughtful poster.

210 posted on 02/01/2002 11:56:49 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Geezus man you have waaay too much time on your hands. Again, I ask you, why am I back pedaling? I agree with his statements about Libertarians, though I should have been more specific and said that I was speaking of the table I posted. I still maintain my agreement with it. Only two of you have attempted to refute it. Kudos to them, because they are the only two calm, reasonable Libertarians I've found. Hey, here's something to keep you busy.. Go back through my past threads and see if you can find the word "gobbledegook". Have a good afternoon, but don't stay up too late on that.
211 posted on 02/01/2002 11:57:04 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
This article is just like an excerpt from a Communist manual--and I know what I'm saying, as I had the misfortune of growing up in a country under Soviet occupation. It's not really about Libertarians; it's about us Conservatives. IT STINKS.
212 posted on 02/01/2002 11:57:15 AM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Hahaha.. get real. You're typical of the frothing, knuckle dragging Libertarians that pervade so many of these threads. If I dare disagree with your politics I am "against America" and "too dim to understand" etc. This kind of pseudo-intellectual snobbery convinces nobody but your other cohorts, and does nothing to offend me. In fact, it reinforces what I already think of Libertarians.

Right. No matter what arguments are presented, it is your rigid and determined intent to continue sitting threr and drooling, "but, uh, libertarianism is bad....".

You pride yourself on having the mental acuity of granite, exactly as I suggested.

213 posted on 02/01/2002 11:57:54 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Nittany, I'm a thoughtful poster, and I've posted in many of these Libertarian threads in the past, explaining why I think the Libertarian Party is an irrelevant political force. I am not surprised that you're unaware of this. Do I like baiting Libertarians? I suppose there is some joy in seeing all of you go absolutely ape-sh@t when someone posts something that exposes your philosophy for what it is.
214 posted on 02/01/2002 11:58:27 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
Spiral-eyed liberal/marxist radicals and god-shouting fanatics occupy the same pew in the church of oppression and mass murder. They're worshipping the same set of death-oriented values, like it or not, know it or not.

Well put.

215 posted on 02/01/2002 11:58:33 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I do think Libertarianism is bad. So what? More important is that Libertarianism is IRRELEVANT. Telling me that I'm stupid because I disagree with you, or because I post something you don't like, is really sad.. a bit like the pot calling the kettle..
216 posted on 02/01/2002 11:59:45 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: OWK
"Hilarious."

He didn't read it, and judging by this history of posts today, he trolling.
217 posted on 02/01/2002 11:59:57 AM PST by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I suppose there is some joy in seeing all of you go absolutely ape-sh@t when someone posts something that exposes your philosophy for what it is.

ROFL. If you mean the libertarian philosophy is directly opposed to the communist ravings you posted, than I guess you've exposed us all.

218 posted on 02/01/2002 12:00:09 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Draw your own conclusions about me.

Very well.


219 posted on 02/01/2002 12:00:22 PM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
And would not the opposing view only be possible in the Libertarian context?

Of course not! It is possible, even unavoidable, in any context that accepts the concept of individual property rights. You accept that concept, don't you? Then you can't sanely argue that libertarians are trying to force their views on anyone.

I think the question is better asked, why is one person's context better than another's and what gives the Libertarians the right to decide?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, because I'm a nice libertarian boy and that's the kind of people we are. But the more I see you write, the more I agree with the folks on this list who think you haven't actually read the piece for yourself: you don't like libertarians, so you found a long anti-libertarian article and posted it, and now you're (as OWK said) backpedaling furiously trying not to lose your credibility.

In an argument between libertarians and conservatives, the pro-property-rights context is better than the anti-property-rights context because it's one that libertarians and conservatives share, not one that is foreign to them. With all due respect, this ought to be obvious to anyone with the intelligence God gave a grape.

It'd probably be best at this point to cut your losses and withdraw. You're only going to look sillier and sillier if you don't.

220 posted on 02/01/2002 12:00:55 PM PST by Barak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-445 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson