Discussions of Libertarianism suffer from confusion about the term’s very meaning. I’ll mention just three cardinal positions. I’m sure there are others.
1. Elevation of Freedom. To some this might be epitomized by great lovers of freedom like
[QUOTE=Woody Guthrie]
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
But on the other side it didn’t say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard that in Sweden, each citizen retains a natural right to gather firewood anywhere. Is that true?
A loosely related genre might be Freeman-on-the-Land with their Admiralty flag nonsense. And what about redneck ranchers squatting on federal land? (I don’t have time to read all the threads, so I hope self-described libertarians will tell how they feel about the recent ranchers’ revolt? Would Woody Guthrie be on their side?)
2. Sam Stone correctly emphasizes the virtues of free market. In many historic breakthrough periods (e.g. rise of mercantilism and banking, growth of railroads, etc.), high productivity growth was accompanied by high income inequality. Even “progressive” thinkers understand this, following the teachings of Adam Smith (if drawing a line somewhere near Friedman).
It does not follow, however, that policies to encourage inequality will improve growth – this is to confuse cause and effect. In fact, I’d love to see expert essays on economy vs Gini coefficient over many centuries – I doubt correlations are clear-cut.
Some of the great wealth accumulators (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Buffett) eventually returned much of their wealth through philanthropy. (But this doesn’t obviate the need for major government funding of education, health care, veterans’ benefits, etc.)
Like many progressives, I have strong preference for market incentives where appropriate. But I don’t treat deregulation as a child’s hammer, the default “go-to” solution for any business impediment.
3. The Week 1 topic focused on a discrimination case. Should a property owner be allowed to operate an inn or pub, with customers sent away on grounds of race?
First, before I put words in anyone’s mouth, I’d like those who peer at Liberty through lens 3, to relate this to lenses 1 & 2 above. How would Guthrie feel? Is the discrimination in support of the economic utilitarian goal, freed pub owners creating more value?
Or is any possible economic value irrelevant, the discrimination being allowed by an overriding Principle of Property Ownership.
A related question, in another thread I didn’t read, is: Should a rich Californian be allowed to buy beachfront property and deny access to beach not owned by him? IANAL but many jurisdictions admit a natural public right to travel to the beach.
4. … 5. …
I’m sure there are more. Please help add to the list.
How are the courts created and appointed without a state? (By a “pure democratic vote” or something else?)
Libertarianism is the philosophy which views the freedom of all individuals as being both good and important. Libertarians prefer having an individual free to make his or her own decisions, rather than coerced into them by any ruling elite. Obviously there are disagreements among libertarians about the precise meaning of the terms and about which instances of individual liberty are the most important, just as there are disagreements among followers of any philosophy.
The problem, of course, is where does one draw the line on externalities. In classic, I am free to swing my fist provided it doesn’t impact someone else’s face.
In the end, freedom - absolute freedom - must always be curtailed to deal with the existence of others. A company, in an unregulated environment, may feel free to dump toxic waste into rivers to improve its bottom line. But the many people impacted are seeing their own freedoms - that to live in an unpolluted environment - curtailed.
But where to draw that line is essentially the nature of American political discourse in fine. And it’s different for each person. One person may live in a world where the right to bear arms doesn’t exist but feel freer - due to the lack of potential gun violence - than a man who has the right to any firearm he wishes. Neither - or both! - could be right about things, but how to reconcile the two is the trick.
Short answer: it is different things to different people.
Indeed, the idea that individual freedom is highest ideal is key to most libertarian thought.
Yes, it’s the law in all the Nordic countries. I believe gathering a small quantity of nuts or berries for personal consumption is also permissible.
For a freeman-on-the-land, it would depend on the specific issue. They are generally nutters, but there might be a case in which one had a point.
In the case of Bundy in Nevada, this libertarian feels he’s in the wrong. He’s using land he doesn’t own, against the expressed wishes of the land’s owner. There’s no freedom to trespass or steal. That the owner is the government is immaterial.
I do think he has a point that the degree to which the federal government owns the territory of the Western states is troubling, but it doesn’t excuse his behavior (and is a matter of federalism, not libertarianism).
The free market is a fantastic tool, but not a universal one. It’s appealing to libertarians because it depends on voluntary exchanges; that it’s also highly efficient and productive is a happy coincidence. But, it’s not the answer to all life’s problems, any more than a hammer will fix a clogged toilet.
Any economic effects are secondary; remember, freedom, not economic growth, is the highest ideal. The discrimination issue isn’t fundamentally about property rights, but instead the ideal of voluntary association. If two people are to conduct business, or be friends, or most anything else, both must assent to it. Forcing either party to engage in a transaction against their will is wrong.
Barring a law which requires him to allow access, or a law that reserves the beaches themselves as public property, then yes, he should be allowed to do that.
Generally, libertarians believe you should be free to do anything that doesn’t harm others, so they typically oppose victimless moral laws, like prohibition of drugs, gambling, prostitution, buying beer on a Sunday, and so on.
As a libertarian, I can’t really agree with the idea of elevation of liberty, that seems to come from a perspective the goes against the idea of natural rights. For the sake of simplicity, we can lump views on rights into two major categories. One perspective is that the rights originate from the government and they are dispensed out to the people. If this is the case, then it would make sense to view libertarianism as an elevation of those rights, but I think it misses the most basic concepts. The other perspective is that we each start with with rights and we voluntarily give up certain rights in order to form a functioning society. In this sense, libertarianism is a question of what rights the members of the society are willing to voluntarily give up and what they gain from it. In short, in one view, it’s a matter of what we can petition the government to say we deserve, in the other it’s a cost benefit analysis between what we give up and what we gain, a consent of the governed.
To give an analogy, the former would be like starting with a block of foam and blowing bubbles in it, which may be of any size and may or may not touch eachother, whereas the other is like taking bubbles and putting them next to eachother, they just deform at first and only get smaller as we try to cram more and more into a smaller space, but ultimately the bubbles are always as big as they can be and always touch.
I can’t say for a fact that’s how all libertarians view it, but most with whom I’ve spoken seem to agree. And so, further, from that perspective, we retain any natural rights we haven’t voluntarily given up in order to join that society.
But that’s where libertarian ideas will start to diverge because the answers to various examples will depend upon what we start out as believing are natural rights, though most will go with self-ownership and property rights as a basis, and where the decisions about what rights to give up and what not to go. I don’t think there’s a clear single answer from a libertarian perspective about questions like squatting on federal land, but I also don’t think there’s really a clear answer from many other political philosophies either.
Most libertarians are generally in favor of free-market capitalism, but that’s not always the case. In fact, particularly in smaller communities, it very well may make sense not to do so. This is where the idea of localization comes from. Generally, libertarians would argue that the federal government should do only what the federal government must and the rest should be at the most local level reasonably possible. National defense makes no senese at a level below the federal level, but stuff like fixing potholes makes no sense at anything above a local level. The whole idea here is, like with my example above, the more we cram into the larger society, the fewer freedoms and the less control we each have over it.
Since a lot of libertarians are free-market capitalists, a lot will go with flat deregulation, but I don’t think that’s a straight libertarian ideal. The idea I would say we can all likely agree with is that regulation should be at the lowest level of government that it makes sense, which may possibly mean no government regulation in some cases, but it doesn’t necessarily preclude some regulation at the federal level. Any regulation will always be a balance of the rights and needs of the people vs. the need for consistency. In this regard, it very well may make sense to have some federal regulations, but I think those will need justification.
For example, given that different parts of the country have different economies, one rural area may have a lot of blue collar jobs and have a relatively low cost of living and another more urban area may have more white collar jobs and a higher cost of living. Some regulations may fit all of them, but I think we might find that many of them don’t. Maybe safety regulations need to be different or more tightly monitored in a blue collar area than in a white collar area. Maybe it would make sense to have a higher minimum wage in an area with a higher cost of living?
Through the lenses of 1 & 2, I’d say that it’s not really fair to combine the economic and property rights issues together. I would, however, argue that these sorts of questions about economy and social issues aren’t well handled with the tools of the federal government and I think they’ll generally work toward the same cause.
For instance, in an area with a large black population, if a racist white business owner wants to open a store, I’m unsure how much a law would help, because he’d lose a lot of business, not just directly from those he’s discriminating against, but also from word of mouth from other people. However, it may also be the case where it’s an area that has had some issues with racism and overwhelmingly the community wants to stamp it out and the law may make sense in that context, it’s hard to say.
OTOH, this is also why I’d be against those sorts of laws being at a federal level. In an area like where I live, racism really doesn’t seem to be much of a problem, and the extra regulations and frivilous complaints probably serve as more of a burden than simply letting the economic incentives handle the situation.
All libertarians do agree there should be a state. If one doesn’t believe that there should be a state, that person is most likely some form of anarchist. I have heard proposals by anarchists for privately run dispute mediations to serve the purpose of courts and the idea would be that any contract made, part of it would include subjecting that contract to a particular mediator in the event of a dispute, but that strikes me as a needlessly complex solution to just avoid having a localized presence of government. It also doesn’t address disputes that arise in situations where there’s no contract in place like, for instance, a land-owner upstream uses pesticides that cause measurable damage to my property.
This is, however, why I would push for as much localization as possible. The problem is, with a federal election, any one person has almost no say, but locally, each vote carries a lot more weight, and knowing the local issues and people I might campaign to, I can effect a lot more change.
Interestingly, I think the best analogy would be music. If I’m at a large party, unless something I like has large appeal (for the most part, it doesn’t), then I’ll have difficulty campaigning for that, and chances are we’re stuck listening to pop or some classics that have the widest appeal. If I’m by myself or with friends with similar taste, we can all probably agree pretty easily on listening to something we can all reasonably enjoy, or at least some compromise where we each get to hear some of what we like in exchange for some of what someone else likes. So, in that situation, why would I put on some pop I don’t care for when we can all be happier hearing something else?
Libertarians do not recognize the right of any person or group to initiate or threaten violence upon an individual or his or her property. There are some areas in which application of this principle is disputed amongst self described libertarians.
Courts exist that were not created or appointed by the state. I’m not sure I understand the question. It’s already a done deal. It would be interesting to know how these courts were founded, but I don’t have that information.
One example would be sharia courts in nations where sharia isn’t the basis of the legal systems. Muslims who choose to do so (both parties to the dispute must agree, naturally) can take their disputes to private sharia courts as a form of binding arbitration, rather than the civil courts.
The original title of this thread was Libertarian Topic of the Week 2: What is it?
When the “Libertarian Topic of the Week” was proposed, the idea behind it was to take specific issues addressed by libertarianism and discuss or debate them.
There is nothing wrong with this thread in its intent, but the use of that title to expand the topic into one more wide ranging discussion in which the whole notion of libertarianism is up for grabs will tend to conflate this discussion with the more focused discussions envisioned in the original thread.
In fact, the opening statement in that first thread was
In order to keep the more directed threads separate from more wide-ranging threads, I have change the title of this one.
My hope was that posters would comment on the contradictions among the three views of perspective on Liberty detailed in OP.
Many libertarians would regard Woody Guthrie’s liberty as liberty’s opposite: criminal trespass.
Some accept unfettered capitalism as a means to the end of prosperity; but innkeepers exercising their liberty to exclude blacks do not enhance the economy; they degrade it.
Facile statements of support for liberty, freedom, and apple pie do not shed light on these contradictions.
As Jonathan Chance noted, one’s right to swing their fist ends at another person’s nose. A law against striking another person is also liberty’s opposite, but it’s necessary to protect the rights of others.
Again, libertarians embrace capitalism (and indeed most of their positions), because it’s based on voluntary exchange, not because it may or may not produce the greatest prosperity. Prosperity isn’t the ultimate end for libertarians, freedom is.
Most Libertarians believe in the concept of “personal property rights”. If I own this plot of land, then that means you do not have the right to trespass, build on it, make improvements to it or use it as a garbage dump. I believe Libertarians would also be against the Federal government owning large swaths of land, unless it was available to the general public for stuff like grazing or collecting firewood.
Whether you are on Woody Guthrie’s side is typically contingent on how “fair” and legitimate you think a property claim is. On one extreme you have a feudal system where the local lord can lay claim to all lands within his domain. On the other extreme you have people who believe that their need justifies breaking into someone’s home and squatting there because the rich owner is out of town.
But as a general rule, Libertarians tend to prefer strong protections of individual property rights.
Libertarian is less concerned with income equality as it is with equal opportunity to pursue your interests. Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates and Buffett didn’t just “accumulate wealth”. They also created it through the management of their companies. The Libertarian (and most economic theories) view is that society is better off when people of extraordinary intelligence and ability are able to create great things in the pursuit of their own interests.
Where income inequality becomes an issue is when you have the formation of a class structure where people of the “right birth” are placed into positions of wealth and power, regardless of their performance in those positions. Like a CEO getting a $50 million parachute on his departure from an underperforming company.
3. The Week 1 topic focused on a discrimination case. Should a property owner be allowed to operate an inn or pub, with customers sent away on grounds of race?
[/QUOTE]
The Libertarian would view it’s the owners right to sell to who they please. If they choose not to sell to a particular race, then they will simply suffer that loss of revenue.
Most of your questions seemed to be phrased with a sort of collectivist slant. “What’s good for society”. Libertarian’s believe that what is good for society, or at least most fair for society is to maximize individual choice and personal responsibility. It doesn’t mean everyone gets to be a millionaire or no one is a jerk.
Many self-styled libertarians advocate free markets because they think they are best for society. Yet upthread we see
Question 1: If, hypothetically, it were established that higher regulation led to higher prosperity, would libertarians support that? Or continue to believe freedom is the ultimate end? (I realize different “libertarians” may have different answers – that’s the point.)
And don’t just say it’s mathematically impossible for regulations to have value; accept the hypothetical.
Question 2: Should the federal government be allowed to charge fees for the lands it owns? Should it be allowed to own land? Should it be allowed to sell the land, or must it give it away for free?
(Like it or not, Cliven Bundy has become the latest poster-child for Libertarianism.)
Question 3: In a recent thread addressing the problem of unvaccinated children spreading measles, civil suits, when a particular contagious episode could be proved, were advocated rather than mandatory vaccinations. This certainly seems to be the “libertarian” approach.
But aren’t transfer payments (in a zero-sum game) after an adverse consequence inferior to preventing the bad outcome?
In a thread from a few years ago I mentioned flood control; libertarians put forth the astounding proposal that the “solution” was for rice farmers to buy weather-related derivatives on the Chicago Board of Trade, to protect them from the bad consequences of flooding!!! Will anyone volunteer that that proposal is less outrageous than I think it is?
Not knowing anything else about the nature of the regulation, I would guess Libertarians would prefer the latter. That it is better to be free and perhaps not as well off than to be a slave in a very pretty and expensive cage.
Again, you seem to be missing a fundamental Libertarian / Objectivist concept that there is no such thing as a monolithic entity called “society”. There are just millions of individuals engaging with other individuals in mutually beneficial arrangements. The government, such that there should be one, only really serves to make sure those individual rights are protected.
Regulations do have value and a cost. If the economic cost of a regulation (i.e. the cost of compliance and enforcement) is exceeded by the benefit (i.e. reduced loss from better constructed homes, less fraud) we can say the regulation has a positive economic impact.
I don’t think Libertarians think the federal government should even own land, other than perhaps the land directly beneath their facilities. Some Libertarians think there should be no Federal government at all.
Don’t they grow rice in flooded paddies?
Anyhow, Libertarians would argue that you assume the risk of flooding when you grow your crops in a flood plain.
My take is that Libertarianism, like most absolutist economic and government philosophies is mostly ideological in nature. That is to say, adhering to the ideology is more important than the outcome. The reason most modern societies are mixed is that pure socialism or pure democracy or pure free market capitalism leaves too many exception cases.