Why Liberals are Not Libertarians

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

Over the past decade, I have written and published numerous essays critical of Libertarianism. In fact, much of the focus of my book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive, is a critique of the libertarian doctrines of market absolutism, social atomism, and negative rights.

And yet, I would describe myself as a "semi-libertarian," in that I endorse the libertarian positions on personal liberty – of association, of religion (or lack thereof), of sexual preference, of free expression, etc. Thus the libertarians and I agree with John Stuart Mill that "over himself, over his own mind body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

In this regard, the libertarians are in agreement with most liberals. So much so that many libertarians voted, albeit reluctantly, for Barack Obama in the recent election (as I discovered in a conference on "Libertarianism and Its Critics," in which I participated this past week).

However, regarding economic justice, property rights, and the protection and preservation of the natural environment, libertarians disagree profoundly with the liberals and are more in tune with the conservative Republicans.

Thus the libertarians are in the strange position of agreeing, in some essential respects, with both the Democrats and the Republicans. But their disagreements with both are so substantial that the libertarians are estranged from both parties.

With the libertarians, I cherish and defend the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. Also, along with the libertarians, I affirm the "like liberty principle:" that, in the words of John Rawls, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all."

However, with the liberals I insist that when we explore the implications of the basic triad of rights to life, liberty and property, and combine them with the like liberty principles, we find complications and conflicts which require the articulation and enforcement of rules by the only agency authorized to act disinterestedly on behalf of all citizens, namely a democratic government acting with "the consent of the governed."

This is all very abstract, and I will attempt in the course of this essay to exemplify these principles with familiar examples.

A "Society" is More Than the Sum of its Parts

Perhaps the fundamental dispute between libertarians and liberals such as myself resides in the ontological status of "society" and "the public."

The social atomism of the libertarians was starkly expressed by Margaret Thatcher when she wrote: ""There is no such thing as society – there are individuals and there are families." And Ayn Rand: "There is no such entity as "the public" ... the public is merely a number of individuals" Now admittedly, Baroness Thatcher is not a political philosopher, and Ayn Rand insisted that she was not a libertarian. So let's look further.

Consider first, this passage from Frank Chodorov:

Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people... The concept of Society as a metaphysical concept falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse... When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. (Quoted by David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer, p. 96).

Next, David Boaz of The Cato Institute:

For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual.... Individuals are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don't have plans or intentions. Only individuals are capable of choice...

(At) the conceptual level, we must understand that society is composed of individuals. It has no independent existence. (Ibid., p. 95).

Now consider the implications of this denial of the "independent existence" of "the public" and "society." If there is no "public," then there are no "public goods" and there is no "public interest." If there is no "society," then there is no "social harm," or "social injustice" or "social (and public) responsibility." It then follows that government has no role in mitigating "social injustice" or promoting "the public interest," since these terms are fundamentally meaningless. Poverty and racial discrimination, for example, are individual problems requiring individual solutions.

In contradistinction, the liberal affirms that "society" and "the public" are "emergent entities," like chemical compounds, languages, and living organism, with qualities distinct from those of their components. Attempts to reduce societies and publics to their component individuals is what the Brits call "nothing buttery:" for example, "a Beethoven symphony is nothing but notes," or "Hamlet is nothing but a string of words," or "a human mind is nothing but cells and synapses."

Good for Each, Bad for All

If we can cite cases in which advantages to each individual harms the interest of all individuals, and conversely that harm to each individual benefits all individuals, then, by distinguishing "each" and "all" we have demonstrated the existence of an "all-entity," "society," that is distinct from a summation of "each" individual. Elsewhere, I have attempted at some length to prove that society is more than the sum of its component members ("good for each, bad for all," and "bad for each, good for all").

Consider just two examples:

Antibiotics: The over-use of antibiotics "selects" resistant "super-bugs," decreasing the effectiveness of antibiotics for all. But just one more anti-biotic prescription for a trivial, "self-limiting" bronchial infection won't make a significant difference "in general," while it will clearly benefit the individual patient. But multiply that individual doctor's prescription by the millions, and we have a serious problem. "Good for each patient, bad for the general population." The solution: restrict the use of antibiotics to the seriously ill. Individuals with trivial and non-life-threatening ailments must "tough it out." "Bad for each, good for all."

Traffic laws: We all agree that traffic laws can be a nuisance. But if you believe that traffic lights constrain your freedom of movement, try to drive across Manhattan during a power outage! In the blackouts of 1965 and 1977 in the eastern United States and Canada, traffic began to move only after the police and a few citizen volunteers stood at the intersections and directed traffic. (I was in Manhattan during both events). The decision of each driver to accept constraints worked to the advantage of all. So too with the traffic lights and stop signs that we encounter daily. We are all freer to move about only because we have collectively agreed to restrict our individual freedom of movement. "Bad for each, good for all."

A third example of individual self-serving behavior leading to ruin for all, "the tragedy of the commons," follows shortly.

To sum up: "society" is not, as the libertarians would have us believe, simply a physical location where autonomous private individuals "do their own thing," from which activity somehow, "as if by an invisible hand" (Adam Smith), benefits for all accrue without foresight or planning. On the contrary, the liberal insists, a society is more than the sum of its individual parts. A society is, as John Rawls puts it, "a cooperative venture for mutual advantage makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts." As the anti-biotics and traffic examples illustrate, common goods are achieved through individual constraint and sacrifice. " Bad for each, good for all." Conversely, unconstrained self-serving behavior by each individual can harm society as a whole. "Good for Each, Bad for all."

The liberal does not deny that self-serving individual behavior, for example by scientists, entrepreneurs and artists, often or even usually results in benefits for all. ("Good for each, good for all"). Instead, the liberal insists that this is not a universal rule. In innumerable instances, such as the two presented above, it can be clearly shown that social benefit requires individual constraint and sacrifice.

Market Failure: The Back of the Invisible Hand

The libertarian insists that, apart from the protection of life, liberty and property, whatever government attempts, privatization and the free-market can do better. For example,

Jacob Halbrooks: "Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' of the market guides all participants in society to promote the best wishes of everyone else by pursuing his own wants and desires."

David Boaz: "(T)he free market allows more people to satisfy more of their desires, and ultimately to enjoy a higher standard of living than any other social system... We need simply to remember to let the market process work in its apparent magic and not let the government clumsily intervene in it so deeply that it grinds to a halt."

And Milton and Rose Friedman: "A free market (co-ordinates) the activity of millions of people, each seeking his own interest, in such a way as to make everyone better off... Economic order can emerge as the unintended consequence of the actions of many people, each seeking his own interest."

What these "market absolutists" fail to appreciate is that not all workings of "the invisible hand" of the marketplace are beneficial. Some unintended consequences of market activity are harmful -- "the back of the invisible hand." Economists call these "market failures."

The source of market failure is hinted at in Milton Friedman's notorious proclamation that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits." This result is neatly accomplished by internalizing profits and externalizing costs on unconsenting third-parties, the so-called "stakeholders." If the stockholders of a corporation are dissatisfied with the profit-making of the corporation, they can fire the managers. But who, other than the government, speaks for the stakeholders: those who live downwind and downstream from a factory, or most recently the tax-paying public, present and future, that has been presented the bill for rescuing Wall Street? If not the regulatory agencies, then perhaps the courts. However, as I have explained elsewhere at some length, the courts fall short as a remedy for market failures.

Limits of Privatization and Property Rights

The Tragedy of the Commons. Garrett Hardin's landmark essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons," vividly displays the principle, "good for each, bad for all."

Imagine a village of sheep herders, surrounded by an open pasture, a "commons," owned by none and utilized by all. The number of sheep in the pasture is at "carrying capacity," which means that the addition of more sheep will degrade productivity and sustainability of the common resource. It is to the advantage of each villager to add to his personal wealth by putting another of his sheep in the commons. But by so doing, he decreases the wealth and well-being of all the others. "Good for each, bad for all."

And now the "tragedy:" Absent collective constraints on the individual, the only rational thing for the autonomous "economic man" to do under these circumstances is to increase his wealth by adding sheep to the commons. Presumably, all the others will be likewise motivated. True, it will destroy the resource and bring ruin upon all, including himself. But he is helpless, by himself, to avoid this result. Might as well "get what he can while he can."

If this scenario applied only to sheep herders and pastures, it would be of little interest. But the significance of the tragedy of the commons resides in its scope of application: to air pollution, to global population, to game management, to ocean fisheries, and to much, much, more.

Hardin's solution is both obvious and compelling: "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon." But who or what is best suited to articulate and enforce the mutually agreed upon rules of mutual coercion? What else but a democratic government, acting in behalf of all, and answerable to all?

The libertarian replies that the tragedy of the commons can be addressed by privatizing the commons -- for example, by closing the open range and dividing it into private parcels. This solution internalizes the cost of over-exploitation, thus motivating the owner to manage the property sustainably. Agreed. But this is only a partial solution, for some commons, by nature, can not be privatized. Among these are migrating wildlife, pollenizers, the atmosphere, rivers, aquifers, the ocean, the hydrological and nutrient cycles, the global climate. The economic value of these so-called "natural services" is calculated by Robert Costanza, et al at approximately double the gross national product of the United States.

Who or what is to protect and preserve these indispensable natural services? We arrive at the same answer: the government, or more correctly, a consortium of governments, for these services, like nature itself, are totally indifferent to both national boundaries and property lines.

"The Public Interest:" Randville, Rawlsburg, and New Orleans. Are there public goods? Ayn Rand, let us recall, believes that there are no public goods because, "there is no such entity as 'the public' -- since the public is merely a number of individuals -- any claimed or implied conflict of the 'public interest' with private interests means that the interests of some men must be sacrificed to the interests of and wishes of others."

The liberal, of course, vehemently disagrees. As evidence of the existence of "public goods," consider a parable.

Two communities are situated on opposite banks of a great river: on the right bank (appropriately) is "Randville," and on the left bank is "Rawlsburg." Randville is populated entirely by libertarians – rugged individualists all, who shun "collective" activity and who assume full responsibility for their personal safety, welfare and property. "Rawlsburg" is comprised of liberal individuals who are properly covetous of their personal rights, yet fully aware of the desirability of promoting public goods and of acting collectively in the face of common emergencies.

News arrives at both communities that a great flood is approaching from upstream. The citizens of Randville immediately get to work piling sandbags around each of their individual dwellings. Across the river in Rawlsburg, brigades of citizens are hard at work building a levee around the entire town.

Come the flood, the puny separate efforts of the rugged Randville individualists prove to be futile, while the substantial communal levee surrounding Rawlsburg holds firm and the community is spared.

"Now hold on!," the libertarian retorts. "Surely, faced with this common emergency, the folks at Randville would volunteer to build a levee. That's just common sense."

Very well, but what about those Randvillians who say: "you guys go right ahead and build that levee. I'd rather stay at home – I have other priorities." Surely the good libertarians wouldn't want to force anyone, in Ayn Rand's words, to sacrifice their interests to the interests of others.

And so we have the well-known "free rider problem," whereby an individual gains unearned and cost-free advantage from the labor of others. A profound injustice on the face of it. The solution? What else than to coerce a contribution to the common effort, either by labor or, failing that, cash assessments.

In other words, taxes.

So it comes to this: The only way for the Randvillians to deal with "the free riders" is to coerce labor on the levees, or assess taxes in lieu of labor. They must do so in behalf (are you ready for this?) of the "common good" of the community-as-a-whole. Just as the Rawlsburgers are doing across the river.

The Randville and Rawlsburg example is a fictitious thought-experiment. If it seems far-fetched, then forget Randville and think New Orleans, August, 2005.

Here's another case that is quite real, and even personal:

In April, 2003, California Governor Gray Davis requested $430 million in federal funds to reduce the fire hazard in the southern California forests. The request was ignored until, on October 24, George Bush formally rejected it. The very next day, "the Old Fire" broke out in the San Bernardino mountains, followed by several more fires, eventually consuming three quarter of a million acres and 3577 homes, and causing 22 fatalities.

This particular disaster struck close to home – precisely 150 feet close to my home, where the fire was stopped at my property line. "The Old Fire" almost surrounded the cluster of houses in our neighborhood, and only the combined, coordinated and professional effort of the US forest Service and the state and local firefighters saved our homes. Several days earlier the county Sheriff ordered us off the mountain while these "big government bureaucracies" did their work – magnificently.

Perhaps some libertarians would have preferred to de-fund the government fire-control agencies and then to leave it to each of us individual property owners to take a valiant stand by our individual homes, garden hoses in hand. Who can doubt that had we tried that, all our houses would have been reduced to ashes and many of us would have ended up as "crispy critters."

In his 2000 debate with Al Gore, George Bush said "I think you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government can." In November, 2003, all of us San Bernardino mountaineers – democrats, republican, independents – were convinced, contrary to George Bush, that "the government" spent our tax money better than we could.

Libertarianism in Theory and Practice

Libertarians routinely trot out horror stories about government waste, fraud, and abuse, and measure these troublesome anecdotes alongside an unrealizable ideal of a "perfectly functioning market." However, this argument commits the fallacy of disparate comparison by comparing what the perfect market would do in theory with what imperfect governmental agencies, at their worst, have done in fact. No thoughtful liberal defender of public regulation of the environment in liberal democracies will pretend that this approach is perfect. In fact, as everyone knows, regulatory agencies are under constant assault and their public service is constantly compromised, usually by the very free market forces and private interests that are celebrated by the libertarians. But if the libertarians have a better alternative, then it must be shown to be preferable in practice, rather than in ideal theory. However, history shows that the unconstrained free market, privatization and the absence of "government interference" has given us opium in cough medicine, spoiled meat, child labor, mine disasters, black lung disease, air and water pollution, depletion of natural resources, and now the collapse of the financial markets.

"The free market," that cornerstone of libertarian theory, cannot survive without a governmental referee, for the unconstrained and unregulated "free market" contains the seeds of its own destruction. Though free market theorists are reluctant to admit it, capitalists are not fond of free markets, since open and fair competition forces them to invest in product development while they cut their prices. Monopoly and the elimination of competition is the ideal condition for the entrepreneur, and he will strive to achieve it unless restrained not by conscience but by an outside agency enforcing "anti-trust" laws. That agency, necessary for the maintenance of the free market is, of course, the "government," so despised by the libertarians. Evidence? Look to history. Then it was John D. Rockefeller, now it is Bill Gates

When, during a football game, a referee makes a call against the home team, the fans are often heard to shout: "Kill the Ref!" -- forgetting, for that moment, that without referees, the game could not continue.

Similarly, "abolish government" is another cry that issues from frustration. Without a doubt, governments can be damned nuisances. They require us to pay taxes, often for services that do not benefit us or for benefits which we take for granted. Governments tell us that we can't build homes and factories on public lands, that we can't throw junk into the air and rivers, that we can't drive at any speed we wish, and that we can't sell medicines without first testing their safety and efficacy. All this curtails the freedom and the wealth of some. But at the same time, such "government interference" promotes the welfare of the others: of consumers, travelers, ordinary citizens and, yes, property owners. Among the liberal democracies, the constraints of "big government" tend to burden the wealthy and powerful, while those same constraints protect the poor and the weak, all of whom, in a just polity, are equal citizens before the law.

In short, libertarianism fails, not because it is wrong, but because it is insufficiently and over-simplistically right. It correctly celebrates the rights of life, liberty and property, and then fails to deal with the conflicts and paradoxes that issue from the exercise of these rights. Moreover, the libertarian fails to appreciate that a just system of adjudication of these rights and claims of presumably equal citizens would necessarily restore much of the very governmental structure that the libertarians would abolish and that the liberals defend.

If the libertarian scheme of free markets, absolute property rights and torts will not suffice to protect the rights of all citizens and the integrity of the natural environment, then what will?

Here's a modest, if familiar, proposal. Let the public in general establish an agent to act in its behalf, and as the guarantor of the commonly held values and aspirations of the polity. And then let that agent first determine and then enforce rules for the optimum sustainable use of the necessarily "common resources" (e.g. the atmosphere, the hydrological cycle, migrating wildlife, etc.). And if the public is not satisfied with how that agent is acting in its behalf, it then has the right to replace that agent with another.

Such a system is in fact in place: the "agent" is called "government," the rules are called "environmental law and regulation," and the system of checks against the abuse of power is called "democracy." In the United States Constitution, as well as the supreme law of numerous other liberal democracies, the freedom and integrity of the individual (i.e., one's rights to life, liberty and property) are protected, even from "the tyranny of the majority."

Admittedly, the liberal democracy and regulated capitalism that I would recommend is not perfect -- nor is any human institution under the sun. But an anecdotal inventory of the shortcomings of public regulation of the environment does not, by itself, constitute a repudiation of the existing system.. What is required is a clear and persuasive presentation of a better workable alternative. This the libertarians have not offered us. Nor can they, as long as anyone pays more than casual attention to human psychology, ecological necessities, and the lessons of history.

-- EP

Note: This essay is an abridged version of "Free Markets, Property Rights, and the Environment," presented to a conference on "Libertarianism and its Critics" at Chapman University, November 14, 2008. It includes portions of a published article, "With Liberty for Some" (Environmental Philosophy, Fourth Edition, Zimmerman et al, Prentice Hall, 2005), and several essays previously published in The Crisis Papers and The Online Gadfly as indicated by the links in the essay.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

1. That's a journey I took as well.

Libertarianism, to me, lacked a moral/ethical dimension that I needed, and that I believe even a free society needs. Both libertarianism and liberalism stem from the same root-word, but that's where the similarities diverge...as do the priorities of the lovers of liberty and the libertines.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. The comic book libertarian is immoral/amoral. In truth, freedom is highly moral.

True freedom doesn't mean do whatever you want, just because you can, and damn the consequences.

True freedom is enlightened and highly moral. For example, someone who uses drugs or alcohol to excess and abandons their family is chained to desires and is not free at all.

You can set up a comic book outline drawing of a hedonist and put a label "libertarian" under it, but that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

[erny]

36. If only the world were all libertarian AND moral...........

"Bernardo de La Paz (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-19-08 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. The comic book libertarian is immoral/amoral. In truth, freedom is highly moral.
True freedom doesn't mean do whatever you want, just because you can, and damn the consequences.

True freedom is enlightened and highly moral. For example, someone who uses drugs or alcohol to excess and abandons their family is chained to desires and is not free at all.

You can set up a comic book outline drawing of a hedonist and put a label "libertarian" under it, but that doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe", H.G. Wells"

Did you actually read the essay?

Libertarianism does indeed work if we are all upstanding moral people. If we do not abuse the freedoms that we have.

BTW people are not always moral, sometimes they are just plain lazy. There is always someone willing to take advantage of a situation, you know the guy who doesn't bother to help build the levee or dumps his waste fuel in the river upstream of your fish farm? How does libertarianism cope with the immoral people out there?

Don't get me started on the inequalities of peoples starting positions either...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. erny = Ernest Partridge?

If I am responding to the author of the essay, then thank you for writing it.

You can take any "ism" and make a case that it only works if we are all upstanding moral people, including liberalism, conservatism, authoritarianism, socialism, communism, anarchism, and progressivism.

Most or all of the caricatures people exhibit here and elsewhere of libertarianism completely neglects the responsibility side of the equation that is central to the idea. There is no true freedom without responsibility. In a modern understanding for a modern world, property rights (to take an example) includes the responsibility to pay for all of the burdened costs. So the person dumping waste fuel upstream from your fish farm is not paying all the costs. If that person paid all the costs, it would ruin them and their family and they wouldn't do it. Sometimes they are just ornery and do it anyway, and jail needs to be invoked as a cost.

Whatever the -ism, there are always lazy immoral people. The existence of lazy immoral people is not an automatic disqualification of any -ism. One could equally say that the existence of "welfare kings and queens" disqualifies liberalism, but it would just as poor an argument.

Regarding inequality of starting positions (and resets after life-changing events), it is an issue and always will be an issue, and it is a key point why I don't advocate anything like the radical Libertarian Party's planks, at least not in the short run, and not to be imposed in a revolutionary way. I start from a liberal stance and seek evolution toward libertarian ideals. I think government (in lieu of idealized non-governmental non-coercive solutions) serves society well if it provides a "floor" for everyone because I know people enough to know that almost everybody doesn't want to stay living and eating and sleeping on the floor (metaphorically speaking).

[mgc1961]

2. Good article, thanks for posting it.

[immoderate]

3. Excellent. I'm sending this to some Libertarian friends.

:applause:

--IMM

[Downtown Hound]

4. There was a brief time about eight or nine years ago

that I called myself a Libertarian. Then I got a brain, moran that I was. Libertarian is the ultimate adolescent-induced, masturbatory fantasy about how the world should be. It lets people live out fantasies in their mind about how freedom works, but it bears very little resemblance to what would actually work in reality. It's fatal flaw is in believing that capitalism left alone would expand freedom, when history has shown the exact opposite is true time and time and time again.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. You set up a strawman and knocked it over. Your charicature is ludicrous and useless.

[Downtown Hound]

17. You post the same thing repeatedly

[DUlover2909]

35. Would libertarians let me develop my own nuclear arsenal?

Could I build atomic bombs and sell them to whoever I wanted?

[arikara]

5. I'm sending this to my libertarian uncle...

Thanks for posting it.

[Chulanowa]

6. Any article that exposes Libertarianism's silliness deserves a K&R

All it is is politicized sociopathy. "I am the only being in the universe that matters, and I have charts!"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. You set up a strawman and knocked it over. Your charicature is ludicrous and useless. . . nt

[Downtown Hound]

18. You post the same thing repeatedly

[Chulanowa]

21. I'm guessing that either you know little of libertarians, or you fancy yourself one

Perhaps out of a striving need to feel "above the herd?"

The basis of libertarianism is placing the self before others. You can philosophize and hem and haw and get as elaborate as you want, but that is the absolute core of libtertarianism - selfishness. Not just that - hey, all people are selfish to soem point - but selfishness with a lack of empathy. You come first, and everyone else comes last. As an individual he can choose to have concern for others, but it' his choice (and according to the philosophy, his loss, while his fellows are leaping and bounding by him in the world of success and pleasure)

Libertarianism does have its good points, and they're pointed out in the OP. However as an independent philosophy taken whole, libertarianism is, again, institutionalized sociopathy. It's anarchism, if the GOP were in charge of anarchy.

[skepticscott]

23. Not just selfishness, but arrogance

The libertarian welcomes the law-of-the-jungle, because they're convinced that they're smarter, tougher and more savvy than most everyone else (except other libertarians), and that in that kind of society, they'll always come out on top. And if people they consider as dumber and weaker have to be culled out of the gene pool, so much the better for them.

[Chulanowa]

28. Always reminds me of this:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Sorry, I'm not going to argue with absolutists who see only black and white.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. American politics is a duopoly, sheer idiocy. Politics has at least two dimensions & 4 quadrants

There are at least two political dimensions: social lib/cons and fiscal lib/con. Some add a third dimension: foreign policy hawk/dove.

Trying to squeeze it all into the American duopoly of Republicans vs. Democrats is sheer idiocy. The founding "fathers" wanted to avoid factionalism but the end result is worse: a duopoly is almost as bad as a monopoly. The two parties cooperate to squeeze out Green and Libertarian and other parties. Then they fight internally: Republicans fight over social conservatism and the net result is that they disregard fiscal conservatism, and borrow and spend. The Democratic party fights internally over regulation vs. free enterprise and in the process in recent years they neglected power politics and got trampled. The only thing that saved them in 2006 was Bush's abysmal presidency and Republican support for him and his (few) ideas. Thank goodness Obama rose above it all.

The four main quadrants are: liberal (fiscally and socially), conservative (fiscally and socially), libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) and authoritarian (socially conservative, fiscally liberal especially corporate welfare). In recent years, the Republican party has become increasingly authoritarian and hawkish, and that has shrunk its base. Even the rich are beginning to abandon it, as evidenced by Obama winning the rich vote.

I'm a liberal who moved towards libertarianism due to a desire to enhance free enterprise (with regulatory safeguards, of course) and avoid corporate welfare and avoid borrow-and-spend hypocrisy. Social liberalism is really the fundamental core of my stance, with free speech, free association, and free thinking at the center. For me, free enterprise and reduction of government are the logical consequences. However, I also believe that government should provide a floor for all citizens, especially simplified health insurance with choice, and that is where I differ from the radical libertarians. A society as rich and powerful as the US can afford it and such a society should be judged by the health care that poor people receive, not by the gold-plated health care that Senators receive.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Enlightenment is the key.

If everyone were enlightened, politics would be minimal and almost automatic. Studies would be done on any issue, and the facts found and the course of action would be almost always self-evident.

"Enlightened self-interest" is not an idle phrase and not to be dismissed lightly. The examples of antibiotics and the "tragedy of the commons" are good and are examples where government regulation performs a role in the absence of enlightenment and education.

The Republicans are anti-libertarian in many ways, despite paying lip service to the ideal. They are anti-science, for example. They aren't even proper conservatives because they don't conserve the environment.

It seems at times as if the Republicans are anti-education as well. So much the better for keeping the sheeple consuming pickup trucks and faux fur toilet seat covers and sports tickets and beer. So much easier to rule them with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

Get people educated, which means not just knowledge, but the ability to think analytically and to communicate clearly and effectively. Read my H.G. Wells quote in my tag line.

[TygrBright]

30. Yup. Enlightenment. Everyone. THAT'S gonna happen, alright. Right about next Wednesday.

Until then, I prefer a little social contract with my fantasy.

Hopelessly naive about human nature, much?

But please, don't be put off by my sarcasm. I was kinda hoping that at least one committed Libbie would show up in this thread to liven it up some.

BTW, it's spelled "caricature."

helpfully,
Bright

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. If you really want debate, respect your opponent & stop cheap 3rd grade nonsense like "Libbie".

It seems that just about everyone here except the original poster is more interested in battling comic book villains because they are fantasies.

Yes, enlightenment is key. It was a key point for the social contract the founders of this country proposed and remains so. Just because an ideal won't happen by Wednesday doesn't mean drop it. Of course we prefer a little social contract with our ideals, but you want to call your opponent's ideals fantasies and somehow keep respect for your own ideals.

There are many fantasies all around, including the ultra-liberal fantasy known as communism, but I don't go around characterizing DU members as maoist communists, which is the mirror image of how writers in this thread are going around characterizing libertarians.

Take a leaf from the original poster and drop the third grade schoolyard mentality of attempting to insult your opponent with epithets like "Libbie", which by the way is used for liberals too. If you are just looking to "liven it up some", then it seems you are not really interested in discussing issues and policies. Stop treating writers here as opponents and start treating them as thinking human beings and you might actually expand your mind a little. Respect is more "helpful" than calling them "hopelessly naive" the way you do.

[TygrBright]

40. 'Scuse me. Where did I say (write) "hopelessly naive?"

'Cause I don't see it anywhere in my post. If I'm having reading comprehension problems of that magnitude I need to know.

Apologies to you for using a term you regard as offensive, "libbie." Noted and filed for future reference. I have heard Libertarians refer to themselves with that term and so regarded it as a convenient shorthand along the lines of "Dems" (which I use to refer to myself and fellow Democrats frequently.) It was not my intent to belittle you or your views by using the term and I will certainly refrain from using it in any reference to you in the future.

"Opponent" is a malleable term. I did not use the term with regard to a poster advancing Libertarian views in the context of this thread. (Whew! See why I resort to shorthand? Takes a long time to type out "a poster advancing Libertarian views in the context of this thread," but I'm interpreting your post as a sign that you regard semantics as very significant. Therefore I feel obligated to maintain a high level of semantic precision.) Hence, I do regard anyone who is (temporarily, permanently, or merely for the sake of argument) contraposed to the views I'm advancing in a discussion as an "opponent" for the term of the discussion. However,I'd happily accept another term for it if it would make you feel more respected. For the record, I do not regard the term "opponent" as irrevocably synonymous with the term "enemy."

While maintaining an ideal of moving the human species toward universal individual (and collective, for that matter) enlightenment is admirable --indeed, I share that ideal-- it falls within a class of ideals that are at best, impractical, and more generally counterproductive for the purpose of creating optimal social organization. (Again for the record, I class Communism here as well, and any form of theocratic ideology.) Like religion, such ideals are best realized within the context of individual decisions and choices, rather than institutionalized by law and practice in the collective arena.

For the purposes of creating sociopolitical structures that optimize the balance of benefits between the individual and the group, I believe it to be far more productive to stick to ideals that have a closer relationship with near-term possibilities of realization. That is, ideals that take into account things as they are, as well as things as we wish they could be. Examples of such ideals are enshrined in our Constitution, a document that explicitly lays out the task of government in terms of balancing individual rights against the common good. Ideals that rely on achieving a level of individual and/or collective social and spiritual evolution unlikely to happen within the next few millenia can only add to the challenge of the current task. Not invariably a bad thing, but not helpful, either.

While I firmly believe that individuals espousing such ideologies should participate in the process of public discourse, politics, and social action that shape our sociopolitical structures, I reserve to myself the right to oppose their views using any and all rhetorical tools and devices that I deem appropriate in a given situation.

Are we communicating respectfully now?

precisely,
Bright

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. Post #30.

[TygrBright]

42. Thanks! Time for a reading comp refresher course, indeed. n/t

[hangman86]

12. The only ones truly free in a Libertarian utopia are the ones with the most money.

Do they really think that EVERYONE is going to become more free with microscopic government? Hell no! That power only gets transferred to the wealthiest because in a capitalistic society the people with the most money win. Do they really think that the people on Wall Street are any better at running things than the people in government? The latest financial crisis should have taught them that. A CEO with billions in his bank account and no oversight to keep him in line can restrict the public freedom just as much as any law passed in Congress.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Nonsense. 1) Truly free are free anywhere. 2) Libertarianism is not an absence of laws or morals.

Yet more loony toon ideas of libertarianism displayed in that post.

Libertarianism does not mean "microscopic" or zero government. Nor does it mean going from the current state to minimal overnight, though some radical libertarians would like that. It's just like some radical "progressives" would like to go from the current state to pure communism overnight, but only somebody who doesn't want a real debate or discussion would characterize progressives that way. Similarly for those who characterize libertarians as "Wall Street running things" and "no oversight". What a joke, but the writer doesn't see it.

[hangman86]

15. Alright so explain

how am I wrong.

[skepticscott]

16. Libertarians are great at moving the goal posts when they're challenged

but here's an easy question for you: What functions of government (if any) do Libertarians consider to be absolutely necessary, with all the others disposable? And how do they propose paying for them, if they believe that everyone should keep all of the fruits of their own labors?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Another absolutist sets up a strawman. Not all liberals are maoist communists either.

[skepticscott]

34. I asked you

to define libertarianism yourself, since you seem to be all huffy about how everyone else is doing it, but you're apparently (but not surprisingly) unable to do so in even the simplest way. And if my point about keeping the fruits of your labors is a straw man, it's not mine...that's straight out of the Libertarian Party platform.

Try again.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. I will not be defined by you or any party. You are adding absolutist junk to what others write.

You keep being absolutist. You keep injecting extremist words like "all" into phrases where it does not exist. Specifically, the language in the platform reads "fruits of their labor" and yet you felt compelled to lie about it and call it "all of the fruits of their labor".

I will not be defined by you or by any party. The Libertarian Party is rather radical and impractical and marginalizes itself because it does not really represent libertarian views that many progressive thinkers hold, because they are not doctrinaire. Are you doctrinaire? You certainly seem so because you have bought into doctrinaire absolutist positions to a ridiculous extent when you are attacking libertarians.

If you want a definition, look to the top of the LP pages where it is summarized by "Smaller government, less taxes, more freedom". It doesn't say "No government, no taxes, irresponsible freedom". I do not say "No government, no taxes, irresponsible freedom".

Further, if you want answers and a debate, then you and the other characters need to quit attacking your comic book ideas of libertarians. I would never write something like "every liberal thinks that everybody should have a guaranteed income and a chicken in every pot".

[skepticscott]

43. Now who's setting up straw men?

What exactly is the difference in intent between saying that some should be able to "keep the fruits of their labor" and "keep all of the fruits of their labor"? Are you saying that the Libertarian Party position is that people are entitled to keep some of the fruits of their labors and that the government should be able to take whatever they think they need? Please. Your claim that I lied about Libertarian party positions is just more baloney to deflect attention from your own intellectual bankruptcy. And I'm not the one buying into "doctrinaire absolutist positions to a ridiculous extent" or "attacking comic book ideas of libertarians". These are quotes directly from the Libertarian website:

"we oppose all government interference with private property"

"we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals"

"We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition."

"All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."



And those are just a few. Are you saying that the "real" libertarians like you would substitute "some" for "all" in every one of these cases, or are you taking the absolutist positions too? Or are you going to duck the issue again and take no position at all?

"Smaller government, less taxes, more freedom" is hardly a "definition". Those are just feel-goody buzzwords that are meaningless by themselves, and do not separate libertarians or the Libertarian party from other political groups. As always, the devil of policy implementation is in the details, and you, like the Libertarian Party, are always too cowardly to provide the details that would distinguish your policy positions and make them unique.

As far as a debate, you seem singularly afraid to debate your positions, to the point of never even saying what they are, only what they're not. I asked you to lay out YOUR positions on how the government should be organized and run, and you haven't responded with anything remotely substantial.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. The only functions of government that Libertarians like are the ones that

keep the poor from taking their stuff (the police and courts) and help them take other countries' stuff (the military).

For the rest of society's functions, it's all Third World: the rich buy whatever they need, and the poor live hand to mouth (or don't live), always aware that the cops and/or military will clamp down on them if they get too feisty.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. Excellent essay. Thom Hartmann has also presented this great argument.

I have heard him debate with Libertarians on his show.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I only got halfway through it, but it's probably the single most important article

I've read on DU.

Property Rights is creating a problem in Republican counties because so many Republicans are confused by their own political philosophy. It's one thing to apply "property rights" to one's own, small homestead. It's another thing when it's applied to large tracts of land which will affect future residents. Yet, that's what happens when developers demand to construct their developments on the cheap, due to their property rights. They're quite happy to walk away leaving problems for homeowners that affect the homeowner's liberty and happiness. In other words, the developer doesn't care about anybody else's property rights, but his own.

They can get away with it, only with the cooperation of the city. Over years, the city has minimized its representation of the public interest, by reducing what it defines as "public." For example, residents who live in private developments with private streets are not considered members of the public. Yes, they do this. It's not a hypothetical. No public street, no public interest. If they are not considered members of the public, then there is no public interest that a city has to oversee during the stages of construction, so the development can be constructed poorly. So, you see how that works?

And how could a city allow itself to be tools for the property rightests? It's easy in a Republican county, where the public has been neutered. What you end up with is a government which is controlled by the squeaky wheels -- the few who are always whining about their rights as individuals, because it's the only thing that resonates in a Republican county. Property rights or individual rights.

It's actually very organized where I live. These individual rightests have a silent network of judges, lawyers, landowners and legislatures who are on the same page. They have been selling the notion of "individual rights" to a Republican constituency for so long, that the Republican constituency can't even figure out when they're being taken, anymore. They just quietly grumble as everything seems to be somebody else's right, without realizing that they have rights too, it's just more "group oriented." They just don't know how to tap into that power because they've been trained that the public interest is bad. It's socialism, so don't put up a fight. But it's goes to ridiculous lengths, and even Associations have been undermined as "property rightest" galvanize to take over the Association's resources.

The problem is, the only place to resolve this is in the courts. And if an entire state has been over-taken by property right madness, who can trust the courts where Judges are counting on land development for their retirement money?

Once these few get a powerful following in the courts, well, it only gets worse. Common citizens, those without connections in the courts, may just have to get use to getting victimized or take their chances with Judges that know these developers, or the developer's lawyers, on a first name basis.

It's crazy.

[skepticscott]

20. Perhaps one of the best proofs

of the bankruptcy of Libertarianism is that their movement did not flourish under the Bush Administration, since one of their guiding mantras over the last 8 years has been that there is no such thing as the "public" good or the "public" interest.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Actually, some of them got away with some pretty outlandish things.

It's just that people who have such warped philosophies, usually have business projects which are flawed to begin with. Whatever concessions they get, are usually the source of their own destruction.

You know what they say. Be careful what you wish for.

[skepticscott]

29. I think Libertarians know that

they'll never get what they really wish for, which is why they can confidently act so smug and superior. Nothing would scare them more than having to prove in the real world that a society based on pure libertarianism could actually work, because the first time they tried would be the last time anyone took them seriously.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. No proof at all, evidence for the opposite, because Bush is authoritarian = anti-libertarian.

Bush is authoritarian = big spending, big government, clampdown on freedoms, hawkish overseas.

Libertarian = smaller government, increase of freedoms, no Guantanamos, no foolish Iraq sand traps.

Of course you can take ridiculous absolutist definitions of your targets and shoot them down easily, by being completely wrong about the definitions and also being absolutist, black or white, on top of that.

[hyperdemocrat]

22. Libertarians are more like conservatives

Ron Paul's people.

[comtec]

25. Libertarians are republicans too embarassed to admit it

Thinking back, my dislike of "liberals" as a kid, was really a dislike of Libertarians.
The idea that "trust the rich man's sense f charity" is about as false as I can think.
I've had conversations with libby's and they always end the same... instant adding to my iggy list.
I suppose I'm more sensitive since the gop has stolen their way in to government and ruined it for everyone.
It's easy to be live in an Ivory tower when YOU are successful, and fine, fuck everyone else. They didn't try hard enough,m they are at fault for not going to college, and suffering like "they:" did.

Many libbys I have met are in fact self made men, or mostly self made. They did suffer to get to their position of prosperity, they worked, and lied , and canived<sp>, and cheated their way - oddly playing the game by the way it actually works, and not by the rules (my problem I play by the rules, and thus always get screwed)

They see their suffering as character building, and proper, they don't consider the help they got along the way was government funded. They don't consider that the government made it possible for them to even get where they are.
They actually take offense at paying taxes to the government, they feel they have a right to every penny, and should not have to pay one dime to help anyone else ,unless they DANE to do so.

The sense that they can do what they want because they "worked, and toiled, and 'suffered'" is at the heart of every libby I have met.

every one, and the OP is not portraying himself as being any different.

Libby's may have parallel interests that coincide with liberals, but those are simply coincidences. The fact that WE want equality for all because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO, has nothing to do with the Libertarian view, of the government simply should not have a say in it.

same goal, V E R Y different reasons.

Where Libertarians show their true colors is national defense. They believe the government should defend THEM, and THEIR money, and liberties, and if that happens to take care of the little guy, sure, ok, why not.

When libby's talk about lowering taxes they mean ON THEM, fuck the little guy, he should pay for the military that keeps his pathetic way of life possible.

but mention Social ANYTHING.. and they retreat to their hateful, bigoted, spiteful, selfish ivory tower faster than you can blink.
The idea of having the government TAKE CARE of anyone is appalling to them, anathema.

In the end I have found no Logic in tying to nail down EXACTLY what a Libertarian is willing to admit they believe. They know it's a core of selfishness, and so I can't say EXACTLY WHAT a libby believes because they hide it. I can only say what I've seen and been able to deduce from it.

Libertarians are cowards. Libertarians are ashamed of what they really are. Libertarians are republicans who are ashamed to be republicans. You'll notice that when a goper wants to hide, they call themselves 'independent' or Libertarians.

[democracy1st]

24. K & R

[Locrian]

26. libertarians

I always thought libertarians were just republicans who like to smoke pot...