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 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-445 next last
To: OWK
#203... ROTFL.

Thanks for the trenchant review of the thread, and for the Friday afternoon chuckle.

Symphony tonight, I'm outta here. Have a good weekend.

221 posted on 02/01/2002 12:00:57 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.

The opposite of communism? Thank you, Captain Obvious.

222 posted on 02/01/2002 12:01:36 PM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Your support for Person B is grounded upon your mutual agreement that the State should have the Powers it requires for Policy X

Wrong. The state should have the powers it requires for some policies, sure. I support drug prohibition, for instance. I believe that drug traffickers should be executed, if convicted in a court of law. I don't pretend to hide this fact. There are some powers the state should not have. Taking my money in the form of taxes to give to someone else is a power the state should not have, for instance. It is true, I am fundamentally in opposition to Libertarianism. So what? Call me names! Oh no! Tell me how dumb I am, or how I'm a "commie"! oh no!
223 posted on 02/01/2002 12:01:59 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I've posted in many of these Libertarian threads in the past, explaining why I think the Libertarian Party is an irrelevant political force.

Does not compute.

224 posted on 02/01/2002 12:02:32 PM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Doom
Oh gee, you're calling me dumb! Oh no, how disappointing. Libertarians are calling me dumb because I disagree with them! What ever will I do?
225 posted on 02/01/2002 12:02:42 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion, 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. ~~ Exnihilo

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 2/1/02 1:00 PM Pacific by NittanyLion

Zing. That pretty well sums this whole thread up. Nicely done, Lion.

226 posted on 02/01/2002 12:03:48 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Again, I ask you, why am I back pedaling?

If I had to guess, I'd say you were backpedaling because you wanted to poke libertarians in the eye with a stick, and so you went to Jimmy-Joe's search engine, and typed in "I hate Libertarians". You subsequently posted the first thing that came out, without having bothered to read it. Now you expect us to believe that you intended all along to post this communistic excrement, and must backpedal to distance yourself from it, because you were too lazy to read it to begin with.

Just a guess.

227 posted on 02/01/2002 12:05:11 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
No, Libertarianism is contradictory. I think the author made that point quite well, whatever his political leanings. I also find it very telling that I have been personally attacked, insulted, etc., etc. by the Libertarians here. But, I've enjoyed it. You all expose the weakness of your own position by resorting to such juvenille tactics. This, among other things, is a reason that the Libertarian Party is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I mean, are we surprised that no libertarian but Ron Paul (who's smart enough to join the GOP) can get elected to a major office? It makes me laugh, because you can attack me all day long, and call me names until you're blue in the face, but it still won't matter because your political views are impotent, meaningless, and pointless. Libertarianism is an ideological joke, so I am not surprised that the impotency is replaced by your table pounding, fire breathing rhetoric.
228 posted on 02/01/2002 12:07:17 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Why do I get the feeling Exnihilo is frantically Freepmailing Dane, Kevin Curry, et al "Come help me! I'm getting butchered!"
229 posted on 02/01/2002 12:08:22 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Several years ago, I gave Mrs. Bustard a shotgun for a Valentine's Day present.

I'm starting to think you and I might be related . . . got any kin in Texas?
230 posted on 02/01/2002 12:08:22 PM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Nah, there are lots of great Anti-Libertarian resources on the web, many of which I read regularly. No need for a search engine. I posted this, never imagining that there was an imaginary rule that anything one posts must be defended in full.
231 posted on 02/01/2002 12:08:26 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
LOL! Is this what you call 'getting butchered'? I more or less expected to get called a bunch of names on this thread. If that is what is meant by 'getting butchered', keep butchering. It's pretty funny, and quite telling.
232 posted on 02/01/2002 12:09:33 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Well, you've certainly gone from calm and collected to red-faced, screaming diatribe. Didn't even take all that long.
233 posted on 02/01/2002 12:09:37 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Are you kidding me? Is this your usual approach? To tell me that I am 'screaming' and 'red-faced' ? I've been sitting here laughing for the past thirty minutes watching you guys get your panties in a bunch. If my face is red it's only from laughter at your antics. But, at least I accomplished one thing. I identified two intellectually honest, intelligent, and reasonable Libertarians. Sadly, you're not one of them. But I'm sure you knew that :)
234 posted on 02/01/2002 12:11:26 PM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Off topic, but I need an answer for an ongoing argument: Does anyone here know if Cheney (actually Bush) has invoked Executive Privilege with regard to the info the GAO is sueing over? Or has he just refused to turn it over without invoking EP?

Thanks, and sorry for the interruption.

235 posted on 02/01/2002 12:13:46 PM PST by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
Wrong. The state should have the powers it requires for some policies, sure. I support drug prohibition, for instance. I believe that drug traffickers should be executed, if convicted in a court of law. I don't pretend to hide this fact. There are some powers the state should not have. Taking my money in the form of taxes to give to someone else is a power the state should not have, for instance. It is true, I am fundamentally in opposition to Libertarianism. So what? Call me names! Oh no! Tell me how dumb I am, or how I'm a "commie"! oh no!

Okay, I'll call you dumb.

That all because you just wanted to remind us all again,

....you went to the trouble of posting an entire screed of Red Communist agit-prop, the fundamental premises of which are only consistent with a Marxist-Leninist world-view, then dropped your trousers and waved your hindquarters out your window declaring, "Look at me, look at me, I say that the Author's points are exactly right" -- points which could, in fact, only be "right" if you granted the Author's underlying Marxist-Leninist cosmological premises...

Yeah, I'd say that was pretty dumb.

236 posted on 02/01/2002 12:14:03 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
obligated to agree

Nope- just trying to get a feel for what you think. I personally think this guy is a raving loon- I think he is explicitly totalitarian-"...what if they are the creators of wealth, and they refuse to create when they are taxed? Well then let us all live in poverty, and let us imprison them, for trying to blackmail the state into lowering their taxes.

This guy is a truly twisted (by my standards) nutcake.

Thoughts?

237 posted on 02/01/2002 12:18:24 PM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo

Well, with respect to their showing in the polls.. I guess Darwin won.

238 posted on 02/01/2002 12:19:53 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The author's claims that Libertarianism is self-condratictory rest on the author's belief that the free-market can some how be injust and initiates coercion. If you've really read those books, you'd know that the free-market can neither be just nor injust in the proper sense of the word, nor can it initiate coercion.

Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

---The author CHOOSES to define market forces as injust and coercive. Libertarians know that they are not, thus no contradiction. If you find this "illuminating" and valid, then we are all inclinded to think that you agree that market forces are injust and initiate coercion.

Image: moral autonomy of the individual Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces

--Libertarians demand that you don't try to distort the market at the point of a gun. Perhaps because it would be somehow immoral? The author thinks it is not only moral but mandatory that markets be distorted (as he sees it as being injust and coercive). Therefor he CHOOSES to call this contradictory when it is not. Libertarinas know that free-markets are not injust, nor do they initiate coercion. There is no contradiction involved in their lack of desire to monkey with the results. If you think the author is correct in his assesment, then we are lead to the conclusion that you too believe that distorting the market is jim-dandy

Image: political freedom Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians

--This is just silly. What's it supposed to mean? In some conceptions of a Libertarian government those that want to forcibly redistribute the funds would be out of luck in getting government coercion. Is the author implying that those who want to direct the affairs of others by imposing their will on them would be prevented from doing so by those darn libertarians who would be directing their affairs by preventing them from doing so? If you agree with the author...well, you get the point (but I doubt it)

Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies

--The author again CHOOSES to see this a a contradiction, and while in a small sense he may have a glimmer of a point here, what does it really prove? If anything it would show them to be less reactionary than they were protrayed elsewhere. Besides, libertarian thought is generally towards smaller and more limited government. Not a total absence of government. Again, there's no contradiction here other than one you choose to create.

Image: benefits of libertarianism Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'

--This is just stupid. The whole idea of free-markets and limited government is that the individual decides for themselves what are benefits to them and what benefits they want. The author again CHOOSES to look through his red glasses at the issue.

The vast majority here recgonized the so-called points in this artcile for the collectivist claptrap that they are. You apparently have not. I'm inclined to understand why you're un-employed.

239 posted on 02/01/2002 12:20:49 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
No, Libertarianism is contradictory. I think the author made that point quite well, whatever his political leanings.

Libertarianism may be contradictory, but the author is contradictory too! If you say that the author made his point well, you aren't a Conservative. PLS stop giving us a bad name!

240 posted on 02/01/2002 12:21:08 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 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