On Libertarianism and Libertarians

Although I'm glad to see libertarianism mentioned more in the media, the current dicussion of libertarianism might be more harmful than helpful. Media personalities like John Stossel are doing a good job explaining some of the basic libertarian positions, but, on the whole, libertarianism is being misrepresented by its critics and by those who hold some libertarian positions but still maintain a pragmatic approach which condones State coercion when it makes sense to them to "get things done".

Many on the Right now express some libertarian ideas, but they aren't libertarians who adhere to libertarianism -- they still value State power in areas which fit their value system, such as military intervention in countries like Afghanistan, or the violation of civil rights when national security is in question, or denial of gays to marry. This creates a situation in the media in which criticism of libertarian ideas are leveled against people who are not libertarians -- the libertarian philosophy has to be taken as a whole for certain ideas to make sense -- it's about integrity. I know that even some libertarians would flinch at the word "philosophy", but in a broad sense of the word, if someone who calls herself a libertarian doesn't have a set of integrated ideas which are consistently maintained, and who violates some libertarian principles for pragmatic reasons, isn't a libertarian.

A "libertarian" isn't really a political type, but simply has certain ideas regarding the political realm -- so that you could say the person is politically libertarian -- otherwise the person is someone who lives their life according to non-intervention, non-coercion principles. The politically libertarian person simply wants to have his or her basic rights protected from coercive violation. In this politically charged environment, because some on the Right have espoused libertarian ideas, statists who feel threatened criticize libertarianism as if it's a political party vying for power, backed by evil corporate monsters.

There is a Libertarian Party, but it's not really relevant, and if it had power, it would give it up in pursuit of a minimalist government. The claim that without a powerful State, corporations would control America is simply a rationalization for State power -- no libertarian wants corporate tyranny, and, in fact, libertarians want a limited government so that large corporations don't have an unfair advantage in the market. The State gives power to corporations -- if government is limited, then all businesses are vulnerable to competition and consumer pleasure or displeasure. Especially in the Information Age, an empowered public can bring down any unscrupulous corporation which is no longer protected by government favors.

The media do libertarians no favors, but the more it's mentioned perhaps people will do their homework. One more point -- when a libertarian, for instance, opposes government control over who can and cannot marry, it's not advocacy for gay marriage, although individual libertarians might advocate gay marriage, but it's simply a non-coercion  principle when the action in question is not violating anyone's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As I said, trying to understand libertariansim through a conservative who promotes a "small" government but supports government coercion through moral legisation, or a liberal who favors civil liberties but not economic liberty, will always be very misleading and unfair to libertarianism. In the right column of this blog is a link to books which give a comprehensive view of libertarian thought. Libertarianism as it's been understood for decades now by the small faction of libertarians is basically the orginal liberalism, classical liberalism, that inspired the better ideas in the Constitution which don't give liberty-killing power to the State.

Update on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 11:52AM by M. Farmer

Here -- http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/04/20/school-reform-benton-harbor-and-the-tea-party/#comments -- is an example of someone who confuses libertarianism with authoritarian coercion -- I don't know how, but he manages to do so. A libertarian will want government to have nothing whatsoever to do with education -- nothing. I realize that many people who maintain some libertarian positions still find some value in individual states managing education at the local level, but a pure libertarian position is to allow the free market to offer educational services and consumers to select what they prefer. The problem of the poor being able to afford education is a separate question which has solutions in the private sector, but first, pertaining to the main issue in the post above -- separation of education and State, pure and simple.

What's going to happen is that public education will deteriorate to the point private online options will capture students who are motivated to learn, leaving public schools to behavioral problems, unfortunate kids who are lost in the system and bureacratic paralysis, thus creating a wider divide between the educated and uneducated -- and in the global, technologically advanced market, class divisions and warfare will only increase. Those who insist on a statist/union approach constantly tweaked by "compassionate" technocrats are doing a disservice to poor children across America -- they apparently care more about the status quo and healthy unions than kids receiving an education. There are dynamic, innovative solutions in the private sector, but until government is limited from being involved, the private sector is at a disadvantage. Those who make monsters out of "corporations" which would provide solutions in the private sector ignore the anti-social State monster that has practically ruined education in inner cities and poorer regions of the country. After all the money that's been poured into public education through the years, the results still stink, and statist solutions from either party will not do any good, whether one wants to call the solution privatization or socialism -- as long as the government is controlling the show and pulling the strings and writing the legislation, it will continue to deteriorate. 

Slowly forming agreements -- the end

There is quite a bit of confusion regarding political labels, and it might be a search for identity gone awry. The totally unnecessary and ugly label "liberaltarianism" is almost as ugly as and perhaps as unnecessary and misunderstood as "libertarian" which had to be used to distinguish the original liberal position from the modern liberal position, because the modern liberal has been fairly illiberal and was actually a conservative reaction to the orginal liberalism -- see what I mean? It's exhaustingly confusing, and it's no wonder most people have not wanted to get involved in politics -- it's all smoke and mirrors.

Now there's a "conservative" revival, but what are they conserving? Our tradition has been statism for most of America's existence, even though the idea of America was to not be ruled by a few elite masters. If conservatives are serious about limiting the power of government and establishing a free market, then they are revolutionaries, not conservatives. If the conservatives are attempting to restore traditional values, then it makes sense, but that's an individual choice and surely conservatves are not seeking political power to coerceively establish values, because if they are, then they are no different fom liberals who use political power to establish their values, which are just as traditional -- America's history has been a mixture of values. Both liberals and conservatives who seek to coerce others to accept their values and prevent a dynamic movement of freedom and innovation are conservative in nature -- they are both reactions to free choice -- they are both an attempt to establish elite rule of a few over the many.

The libertarian principle which distinguishes the libertarian from all others is non-coercion -- anti-statism. We can drop the labels for a minute of clarification. A person either believes that government, through the State, should control and manage the economy and interfere in how people live their lives or that person believes people should be free of elite rule. A person either believes we should establish protection to prevent coercion, or they beleive it's okay for government to coerce some to achieve economic goals established by the government. A limited government proponent believes government should be limited to policing, military and courts, and that as long as people are not violating the rights of others of liberty, life, property and the pursuit of happiness, they should be able to live free of coercion by any rulers -- that, in fact, they shouldn't have rulers, but a government made up of those who choose to serve the people and protect them from coercion by others.

So, the political alliances which form to gain political power are attempting to establish and force their values on the rest of the country -- these are the people who believe that statism is necessary and the State has to choose when to coerce and when to allow a certain measures of freedom - this is determined by those in power in government positions.

Government has not completely ignored the Constitution, but statists in America have allowed our government to go way beyond its Costitutional limits in order to establish what the statists perceive as social justice, making things better for those who've been oppressed by powerful and privileged interests. Some who have gained power in government felt that businesses were oppressed by liberals from the previous government, but mostly those in power have violated the Constitution and used coercion to redistribute wealth to the poor, oppressed and middle class.

Both conservative governments and liberal governments in America have used statist means to accomplish their goals and establish their values. It has brought us to a point where if major changes are not made, we will collapse financially. Yet, both liberals and conservatives, many of them, still promote statist means to solve societal problems. The power they have gained has corrupted the system, and powerful financial interests have bought their way into government protection from both Republicans and Democrats.

Although there's more to it, the division is between anti-statists and statists. Both liberals and conservatives have misused the government and violated Constitutional limits -- conservatives to enforce conservative values and liberals to establish their version of equality -- both violating individual rights in the process.

Libertarians, for the most part, have held on to the principles of limited government and a free market. What either of these principles mean in the 21st century is the big question, and if alliances are to be made which include libertarians, in order for the alliances to have any meaning, they need to be establsihed around non-coercion and anti-statism. Otherwise, it's just a matter of those calling themselves libertarian capitulating to one statist force or the other.

Statism has failed. It's that simple, and creating new forms of statism, attempting to find smarter more enlightened rulers to "make government work" is futile. We see the results of centuries of statist practices from conservatives and liberals. Those who claim we've never had a free market or limited government are most likely correct, but it has nothing to do with where we go from here. If the founding ideas were never implemented, and if the ideas were never fully accepted to start with, it has nothing to do with whether we apply the ideas of freedom now. It's a choice people have to make -- we either allow a small elite to rule, or conservatives, liberals and libertarians join together to limit government and establish the most free market possible, moving in the direction of classical liberal principles first and relying on government last. If we collapse, bad things will likely happen, the most likliest being that authortiarians take over and control in ways no one is going to like. We're paving the path for that ruthless power right now as government becomes more and more a force of domination.

Revolution 21 -- part II

As a libertarian, I'm not inspired by opposition organizations designed to win political power, replacing old authority with new authority, so "revolution" means something different from my perspective. What America, and the world, needs, in my estimation, is a spiritual and mental revolution on an individual basis, capturing Nozick's moral/free space which is possible only with the right to own and control the use of private property. 

Too many revolutions have replaced one tyranny with another tyranny. We don't experience hard tyranny in America, just a modern, smiley-face tyranny. The collective mindset in America shouldn't have made the advances its made -- we're not that type of country, but like I wrote in the previous post, incremental gift-giving has its effect. Unless individuals all across this country understand the vital importance of property rights, moral space, self-reliance and the principles of liberty, then we'll slide further into socialistic dependence.

In theory, Revolution 21 can come about with no organization at all. It will not require a team of technocrats and policy wonks, no fire-breathing, charismatic leader, no slogans or guns, no manifesto or unified acceptance of ideological purity, just a change of heart and mind on an individual basis.

All that Revolution 21 will require is a widespread acceptance of non-coercion, except the monopoly on coercion given to a limited government to prevent coercion -- in other words you can be coerced to not coerce anyone else. But how does society get to the non-coercion doctrine? Through a revolution of mind and spirit. Simple, right?

I'll be writing about this for a long time -- more later.