The Problem with American Libertarians
76
Libertarianism in America is a complicated beast.
Libertarians espouse a belief in unlimited personal freedom. Yet many of them supported George Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Let's take a second to remember this. Bush passed the Patriot Act, which allows:
- unauthorized breaking and entering into the homes of American citizens
- warrantless wiretapping
- indefinite detentions without charges or access to a lawyer
- access to your library records and bank statements
- etc... more here.
Bush was also no friend of personal freedoms, pushing for abstinence only education, stricter controls for women who need contraceptives or abortions, and so on.
The alliance between Libertarians and Republicans is based on one simple ideological point:
a belief in small government and a free market.
I consider myself a leftist. However, I share the libertarian belief in small or no government, and in maximum personal freedom, economically and socially.
In fact, the best name for my political leanings would be "Libertarian Socialist."
Modern American Libertarians might wonder if that's an oxymoron.
I, on the other hand, am surprised that so many who call themselves libertarians believe that private property is the supreme good.
Why?
Because
1. private property requires state power.
and 2. private property plus state power inevitably work together to strengthen each other, because of 1.
Think about it.
Let's start from scratch. Let's create a society from the ground up, with private property as the center point around which we organize everything. The only right is this: Individuals can own whatever they can afford, and they can do whatever they want with what they own.
If this system is to work, In order for you to own something, there has to be some sort of law or mutual agreement set down that defines what can be held as property, how it can be exchanged, and what the rights of the property owner are.
The only way to enforce that law or agreement is to bring in third parties, who should ideally act as an impartial arbiter of disputes.
Property owners also need some sort of protection from those who would steal their property.
So, we need judges, courts, and police. And we need a way to pay for these services. We'll need a governing body that prints and monitors the currency or whatever means of exchange we choose. So we will need to set up some sort of government. And, if there are other societies nearby that might raid us and steal our property, we'll need a military.
To pay for all this, we'll need taxes.
So, we've established a basic, minimal government to regulate and protect property ownership.
Let's fast forward a few years.
Let's imagine that everyone started off on an equal footing in our
society. However, over time, life will inevitably get in the way.
Perhaps a natural disaster devastates the property of some of our
citizens. Or, perhaps refugees move in with no money or property of
their own.
How do we take care of them? If our system is based entirely around the rights of property ownership, these people with no property have no rights.
Sure, maybe if they work hard in our free market they can recover some of what they lost.
But
they are no longer on an equal footing with everyone else. Making
money, without money or resources in the first place, is kind of hard.
Perhaps some people could loan them money. But then they would be in
debt and have no rights. If the business they start up with their loans failed, then what?
Let's look at the other side of the spectrum - the lucky ones who managed to keep their original property.
Over time, they will be able to invest, and profit, more and more. Do they have more rights because they have more money? What about the affairs of government? How do we prevent the people with more money from tinkering with the government through bribes, or propaganda?
After all, the more money you have, the more resources you could bring to bear. You could start your own newspaper, or television station. You could offer campaign contributions
to politicians who were friendly to you. You could even raise an army
of your own to intimidate or kill your enemies. Or, you could sell the services of your private army to the government and make a profit from war and police actions.
Over
time, it is inevitable that those with private power (money) will
influence public power (government) to act favorably toward them. Since
the public power consists mainly of police, courts, and the military,
this means that enforcement of the laws will become more and more
favorable to the richest, and less so for the poorest. Since the
military protects the rights of those with property, the miltary will only act on behalf of those with property.
That is, unless we base our society on something other than the ownership of private property.
More to come in the next hub.
 | Amazon Price: $6.29 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.43 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.49 List Price: $25.00 |
CommentsLoading...
Very well put. Some of the mental disconnects required to say the things a lot of so-called American libertarians are saying right now and for the past few months have really boggled my mind, as a progressive with some libertarian leanings. This is a great explanation of why the political philosophy of so many of these new American libertarians is not only bizarrely uninformed and unexamined but actively counterproductive to the well being of the American people.
Thank you Pam and Kerry. It makes me feel good to hear praise from you two, as I hold you both in very high regard.
Modern libertarians would do well to read the works of classical Anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman.
We came to America with one suitcase. My father worked 14 hours a day at min. wage, no one would loan to a refugee, so we lived at poverty level for years. Over the years he built a tool & die company, paid his taxes, and raised a family. We came here to avoid Communism, and my family loved the America that gave us a wonderful life, with the freedom to become, and have, whatever we were willing to work for. Over the years, we have seen this country very quickly turn towards all the things we left. You can call it whatever you want, it's no longer good.
My father worked hard too and so did his father. They were laborers backed by strong unions, which meant that even though they worked 14-hour days TOO, we were able to live decently on one income and have what we needed. That was in the 50s and 60s--hardly a time when America was known for being a communist country.
Why do people who came here to escape communism always act like those of us who have worked here for generations are not 'real' Americans? It gets irritating and insulting. Me and my blue collar roots are every bit as American as you and your communist-escaping roots.
I get tired of the right constantly insinuating that anyone who was ever part of a labor union in the U.S. is somehow a traitor. My father and grandfather worked themselves to the bone WITH a union. Quit acting like escaping some other oppressive system is proof that you are more American than everyone else. You are not any more or any less American than the rest of us.
Hi William - Another fascinating Hub :)
I must admit that I find this libertarian thing puzzling. They keep telling me that I am oppressed and living under an evil nanny state, so I do not understand true Liberty.
This becomes tiresome after a while - governmental interference in my life is minimal, my taxes are minimal and I do not have corporations stealing from me. I cannot see how I am oppressed - Greeks take freedom very seriously and burn Athens down if the government oversteps the boundaries.
I have never been convinced by this free-market thing, either - there is supposed to be some magical point of supply and demand that ensures that life is great and we all get extra milkshake. Economics is, in fact, a chaotic system, and lovingly constructed models cannot contain the complexity of chaos and dynamic equilibrium.
I like many things that they say but, ultimately, I feel that the whole idea is like communism. Great until you have more than four people in a society, then it falls apart. :D
JIberish, a few points.
I'm not sure which country your family fled but I will say that Communism as it was practiced in Eastern Europe and Russia was not a good thing.
However - I don't think that what the Soviets had in Russia was really communism. Rather, it was an extreme oligarchy, that is, rule by the rich. Supposedly, under communism, the people own the means of production and economic power. In communist Russia, the Communist Party owned everything. There's a fundamental difference there between the name and the practice.
Basically the wealth of the Tsars and the ruling classes was transferred to the Communists. The peasants simply had a name change, and became the proletariat. Their role in society, their basic freedoms, didn't change.
So, I don't truck in names. Names are basically meaningless. North Korea, if we go by names, is a Democratic Republic. LOL!
What I go by is results. America is indeed a functioning democracy - but it is rapidly heading the way of Oligarchy. So in that sense I agree with you. But it is not because of the left, or the democrats. It is because the super wealthy are getting more wealth and more power and more control over government - not because some people want to raise the minimum wage or provide health care to everyone.
Also - my imaginary society does leave room for some people to work hard and make it. My concern is with the people who work hard and can't make it, for whatever reason. I'm glad your family was successful.
Something to consider, though - your family came here at a time when Unions had fought (or were fighting) the toughest battles on behalf of working people. Part of the reason your family was able to succeed was because of the left providing things like mandatory overtime pay, sick leave, etc. Opportunity is a wonderful thing, but there have to be protections as well.
jiberish you seem to be saying that immigrants who come here and work 14-hour days at minimum wage and are treated unfairly have some kind of moral high ground or superiority over other Americans. Almost all Americans have ancestors who have come from other countries and worked hard and made sacrifices. As William said, why don't you honor the people who fought the hard fight to unionize and fight for worker's rights, such as: decent wages, health care, and decent working conditions. I'm in awe of the sacrifices they made for the rest of us. Activism is part of the spirit of America and of a working democracy. The communism you say your family fled from practiced torture, had no habeas corpus, and was only concerned about holding onto its power. I think that pretty much describes the right wing politicians that have brainwashed their base into believing they care about the average middle class Joe. They want you to buy into the myth that anyone who opposes their agenda is anti-American, socialist, a Nazi, or a communist. They are counting on you to support them in supporting big corporations, Bank of America, and the Insurance Industries who refuse to pay for the health care we are buying insurance to cover.
"That is, unless we base our society on something other than the ownership of private property."
You're singing my song William. This is excellent and your thinking and writing are exemplary.
The human race has been through several radical changes over the millennia. Our current predicament is the result of powerful, wealthy individuals who are attempting to prevent the next big change, which is long overdue.
What they fail, or refuse, to recognize is that the powers of nature have no regard for their wealth. In their lust for supremacy they will destroy themselves along with the rest of us.
A global, resource based economy, without currency, designed to provide for the needs of all people and ensure the survival of the species is required.
Step one, a fully informed and well educated population.
Step two, the pragmatic and rational application of technology and science to build a functional, global human society.
Step three, live in Peace and unity on a healthy planet with an abundance of resources more than adequate to ensure a meaningful, fulfilling and useful life for everyone.
How hard could it be?
I agree with just about all of your points about Libertarians and I'm perfectly fine with a voluntary socialist system (as opposed to state socialism which most people think of these days when socialism is discussed). And frankly, I think the idea of a limited government is a pipe dream. Government expands by default, because the people with the power to limit it are also members of the government. At best, you slow the expansion down.
However, I very much disagree that in order to have private property government judges, courts, and police are required, and by extension, taxes and politicians. There are quite a few examples throughout history where courts systems and forms of personal protection have existed without an established government. Early maritime trade agreements and the early American West would be pretty prominent examples where systems of deciding disputes through independent third parties functioned quite well. In fact, the one size fits all; like it or not monopolistic government style of dispute resolution often creates, rather than resolves, conflict.
William, you are right on, as usual. This is another great hub from you. Your writing is clear, concise, thorough and intelligent, as are the positions you present, and your demeanor and patience is excellent.
I read somewhere that most of the american public are leftists with a slight libertarian leaning. Slight, I'd emphasize. This is one of the problems with labels. There's something worthwhile in most ideologies. We ought to be able to borrow what works from each without being stuck in that corner.
Great, well informed hub, William. Keep talking.
ColdWarBaby - why do you hate America?
Seriously - have you checked out the Transition movement? It looks to me like the best plan for putting a new system in place while simultaneously dropping out of the old one.
Thanks for stopping by!
Eyeam4anarchy:
Thanks for the comment. I am not sure I agree with you entirely about having private property without government. This may be a very fine distinction I am about to make - but there is a difference between "possessions" and "private property." What I carry, what I have made for myself, is pretty obviously mine. But what I own? A bit harder to prove.
There has to be some degree of agreement and consensus about what is what. In a communitarian/anarchist system, ownership could be totally informal - but it would also have to be pretty small scale. The acquisition of personal wealth would be hard, because your neighbors would all have to agree that what you claim is indeed yours.
In an American Libertarian system, if I could pay for something, I would own it. Thus, if I paid workers, I would own the fruits of their labors. If I bought a forest and then logged it, I would own the timber.
In an anarchist system, where ownership is only informally defined, such things would be much less cut and dried. How would we determine who owns the fruits of labor? Without a system of currency and a set of laws, what would be the medium of exchange?
I think, under such an informal system, our mutual arrangements and business transactions would be much more fair. But that is not the system espoused by modern American Libertarianism.
Am I making sense here?
Things: thank you for the kind words!
"consider myself a leftist. However, I share the libertarian belief in small or no government, and in maximum personal freedom, economically and socially."
Basically this is what I was commenting on. For those of you who want to put words in my mouth, let me assure you that I have never, and will never discount the hard work of anyone in any country. I don't seem to be saying anything, unless you actually hear me or read what I said. So please make your comments and opinions your own.
We shared the same beliefs, and they are now slowly deteriorating .
No one votes for a candidate they completely agree with. Laura Bush surely voted for her husband but certainly differs with him on some issues. Libertarians who voted for Bush held their nose and picked the most desirable of the two undesirable major candidates. I voted for Barr myself.
One brief look around the world tells us that countries without private property rights are ALWAYS the poorest places on Earth. Elementary my boy.
James:
Actually, the poorest countries in the world are countries with corrupt or nonfunctioning governments - Somalia, CAR, Niger, Sierra Leone. These nations are, in essence, the ultimate Libertarian paradises..., as they have absolutely no government interference.
Another contributing factor to these nation's poverty is European imperialism, which you can educate yourself about easily.
A funny thing, too: many of the richest countries also have socialist policies firmly in place:
http://financialranks.com/?p=40
There is not a straight, 1 t0 one correlation, obviously, but it just goes to show that there are many different things that factor in to a nation's wealth.
Hi William, I like your thinking, and your arguments here are very clearly expressed. I'm interested to see that you are part of the Transition Town movement, as I live slap bang in the middle of three towns which are actively involved with TT, and I've written two related hubs. For my own part, as a UK citizen, I've grown up with certain socialist measures firmly in place. Our NHS is absolutely a Godsend, and I doubt whether I would necessarily be here without it. Things have gone awry here over the last decade or so, largely because of our own version of the sub-prime debacle, coupled with other incidences of financial mismanagement, most of which have been related to creating money through debt. Nobody relishes the idea of the Nanny State, but large corporations, and banking institutions need to be regulated, or the current situation becomes the inevitable consequence.
That's getting a bit beyond personal property and the ability of a society to create an adequate court system.
In an actual free market, the parties involved in any transaction would decide what to base that transaction on whether it be as simple as a barter exchange or some form of currency. They would also set values based on their actual need and the relative value, rather than a manufactured scarcity. Anarchism in no way precludes a society from having a system of currency or prevents them from having laws.
I don't consider the inability of someone use to their influence to hoard wealth at others' expense to be a bad thing. Nor do I do consider a localized society rather than a few small groups being able to maintain a globalized monopoly over authority to be a draw back to Anarchism.
In terms of land rights, I don't believe that the desire to lay claim on someone else's labor simply because you said you owned the land they are doing that labor upon without doing anything else to be an argument that we need a government to give them ownership over something they don't themselves own. In the example of the early American West that I cited, there were very few land disputes during the time before government was established and there were independent arbitration systems to settle any disputes that did arise. People generally staked out whatever land they could work or afford to have someone work on their behalf. The problems usually came about once the judge and the sheriff arrived and one group was able to use their personal influence with them to legitimize illegal claims.
Similarly, we don't need someone to tell us who would own the fruits of workers' labor, because they can very easily determine for themselves who should benefit from their labor. If someone decides they wants to work for their own benefit they have that option, however nothing prevents them from deciding they want to make an arrangement with someone else to work for them if they don't have that desire or ability. They very easily can create a contract that says I will do x in return for y.
"I think, under such an informal system, our mutual arrangements and business transactions would be much more fair. But that is not the system espoused by modern American Libertarianism."
I certainly agree with that statement, but that hardly makes me change my mind about the necessity of government. If anything it reinforces it. The real problem with American Libertarianism is that they properly criticize the government as the source of almost all of society's problems and yet still look to the government as the solution to those same problems.
American Libertarianism is true conservatism at its finest. Just like Ronald Reagan said, the foundation of Conservatism is Libertarianism.
Where have you been all my HubLife? I apologize for not finding you earlier. I am loving your Hubs. Thanks for speaking some truth! Two paws up!
pgrundy 2 years ago
This is excellent. You really put your finger right on it. It's ironic though, this obsession with private property has such a 19th century feel to it. I think that's because so much of American Libertarianism comes from the period of the Westward expansion. Rose Wilder Lane helped immortalize her mother with the "Little House on the Prairie" series of fictional stories, then went on to become the mother of American Libertarianism and a colleague and fan of Ayn Rand.
What strikes me as ironic about all that is that Wilder's parents were squatters on an Indian reservation. They were also failed farmers and got kicked off. Their love of private property is more accurately described as a love of stolen property, and the rugged individualism Wilder-Lane espoused romanticizes the life of the western settlers and omits their frequent early deaths and repeated failures.
Also, at some point, the argument always comes down to slavery IMO. That is it's natural endpoint. No laws and private property owners come first, then what if you decide it's convenient to make people your property? If they have no property of their own, you're doing them a favor, right?
I've found in my conversations with the HP Libertarians it always comes down to that and they never have very compelling answers. I think Libertarianism is a bit of political fantasy based on misremembered historical events. I sympathize with the desire for smaller government and respect for the individual but my sympathies end there.