Libertarianism

|

|

|}

This article is about the classical liberal individualist philosophy that strongly emphasizes private property rights conjoined with civil liberties. Economic libertarians and civil libertarians agree with libertarian philosophy in their respective areas, but may disagree on other issues. For the libertarian political philosophy favoring socialism, see libertarian socialism or anarchism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a conception of free will.

Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy which says that the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as whatever he wishes to do with his person or property allows all others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded.

Principles

Main articles: Libertarian views of rights and Libertarian theories of law

Libertarians believe that individuals in society should be allowed to organize themselves rather than organization be imposed by governmental authority, because imposed organization implies use of initial force. For libertarians who do acknowledge a need for the state, they believe it should merely serve the role of a night-watchman intervening only to adjudicate disputes and stop aggressions against individual liberty. They generally define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom, which is generally consistent with the basis for criminal law in most modern democratic societies.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do, which is termed positive liberty, a distinction first noted by John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller detail by Isaiah Berlin.

Libertarians generally view arbitrary constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property, or statism, as a violation of liberty. They tend to view the proper role of government as preserving liberty by defining and defending the equal rights of individuals to their respective freedom of thought and action. They see law enforcement as appropriate for sanctioning those who harm others through force or fraud, but not appropriate for sanctioning those who have not harmed others. Anarchism is an extreme version of libertarianism favoring no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary because in the absence of government individuals will form self-governing social bonds and rules.

Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and that compromising one necessarily endangers the rest. In democracies, they consider compromise of these individual rights by political action to be "tyranny by the majority."

Many libertarians favor common law, which they see as less arbitrary and more adaptable than statutory laws. The relative benefits of common law evolving toward ever finer definitions of property rights were articulated by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett. Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution would eventually define away various "commons" such as pollution or other interactions now viewed as externalities. "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility."

Rights and consequentialism

Some libertarians such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard view the rights to life, liberty, and property as natural rights, i.e., worthy of protection as an end in themselves. Their view of natural rights is derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Ayn Rand, another powerful influence on libertarianism, despite rejecting the label, also viewed these rights as based on natural law.

Other libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and F.A. Hayek justified these rights on pragmatic or consequentialist, as well as moral grounds. They argued that libertarianism was consistent with economic efficiency and, thus, the most effective means of promoting or enhancing social welfare.

Libertarian policy

Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States and New Zealand's Libertarianz Party, consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas.

Libertarians strongly oppose infringement of civil rights such as restrictions on free expression (e.g., speech, press, or religious practice), prohibitions on voluntary association, or encroachments on persons or property except as a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behavior. As such, libertarians oppose any type of censorship (even for offensive speech), restrictions on gang membership (as distinct from gang violence), or pre-trial forfeiture of property. Furthermore, most libertarians reject the distinction between political and commercial speech or association, a legal distinction often used to protect one type of activity and not the other from government intervention.

Libertarians also frown on any laws restricting personal or consensual behavior, as well as laws on victimless crimes. As such, they believe that individual choices for products or services should not be limited by government licensing requirements or state-granted monopolies, or in the form of trade barriers that restrict choices for products and services from other nations. They also tend to oppose legal prohibitions on recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution. They believe that citizens should be free to take risks, even to the point of actual harm to themselves. For example, while most libertarians may personally agree with the majority who favor the use of seatbelts, libertarians reject mandating their use as paternalistic. Similarly, many believe that the Food and Drug Administration shouldn't ban unproven medical treatments, that any decisions on treatment be left between patient and doctor, and that government should, at most, be limited to passing non-binding judgments about efficacy or safety.

Aside from their distaste of constraints on personal behavior, libertarians believe that government should refrain from imposing any positive moral obligations, such as religious practices, mandatory national service, or tax-financed welfare. In fact, most libertarians consider any forcible redistribution of wealth to be theft, whether done by private individuals or through state power in the form of taxation. As such, they generally oppose the tax-funded provision of public services such as postal service, transportation, social insurance, public education, and health care (though such services may be funded privately). Many libertarians also object to redistributionist policies as economically inefficient, the product of inherently politicized decision making that leads to lower quality, highers costs and other distortions relative to what would be realized in a free market. They also oppose all collusion between government and corporations, often termed crony capitalism and corporate welfare, which is seen as forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation.

Libertarians generally believe that such freedoms are a universal birthright, and they accept any material inequalities or wanton behavior, as long as it harms no one else, likely to result from such a policy of governmental non-intervention. They see economic inequality as an outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable.

Anarcho-capitalism and Minarchism

File:Download la gold.jpg

The Libertatis Æquilibritas is a symbol of anarcho-capitalism. Some libertarians and Objectivists also use the dollar sign as a symbol.

Main articles: Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism

Most who self-identify as libertarians are minarchists, i.e., supportive of minimal taxation as a "necessary evil" for the limited purpose of funding public institutions that would protect civil liberties and property rights, including police, armed forces, with no conscription, and judicial courts. Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary. They wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that any monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic, and that institutionalized coercion on any scale is counterproductive.

With the exception of some true anarchists and orthodox Objectivists, the policy positions of minarchists and anarcho-capitalists on mainstream issues tend to be indistinguishable as both sets of libertarians believe that existing governments are too intrusive. Some libertarian philosophers such as Tibor R. Machan argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction.

History

Main articles: Liberalism and Classical Liberalism

Confusingly, it was anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who first coined the term libertarian in 1857 [1]. While many left-anarchists still use the term, its most common usage in the United States has nothing to do with socialism.

Instead, libertarianism as a political ideal is viewed as a form of classical liberalism, a modern term often used interchangeably with libertarianism. This concept, originally referred to simply as "liberalism," arose from Enlightenment ideas in Europe and America, including the political philosophies of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, and the moral and economic philosophy of Adam Smith. By the late 18th Century, these ideas quickly spread with the Industrial Revolution throughout the Western world.

Locke developed a version of the social contract as rule with "the consent of the governed" derived from natural rights. The role of the legislature was to protect natural rights in the legal form of civil rights. Locke built on the idea of natural rights to propose a labor theory of property; each individual in the state of nature "owns" himself and, by virtue of their labor, owns the fruits of his efforts. From this conception of natural rights, an economy emerges based on private property and trade, with money as the medium of exchange.

At around the same period, the French philosopher Montesquieu developed a distinction between sovereign and administrative powers, and proposed a separation of powers among the latter as a counterweight to the natural tendency of administrative power to grow at the expense of individual rights. He allowed as to how this separation of powers could work just as well in a republic as for a limited monarchy, though he personally preferred the latter. Nevertheless, his ideas fed the imaginations of America's Founding Fathers, and would become the basis upon which political power would be exercised by most governments, both constitutional monarchies and republics, beginning with the United States.

Adam Smith's moral philosophy stressed government non-intervention so that individuals could achieve whatever their "God-given talents" would allow without interference from arbitrary forces. His economic analysis suggested that anything interfering with the ability of individuals to contribute their best talents to any enterprise--a reference to mercantilist policies and monopolistic guilds--would lead to an inefficient division of labor, and hamstring progress generally. Smith stated that "a voluntary, informed transaction always benefits both parties," such that "voluntary" and "informed" meant the absence of force or fraud.

During the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers of the United States enshrined the protection of liberty as the primary purpose of government. Thomas Jefferson said that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." He is also credited with the saying that "the government that governs best, governs least."

The Marquis de La Fayette imported American ideas of liberty, although some might say re-imported, in drafting the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, which states:

Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.

John Stuart Mill, in a reformulation of Jeremy Bentham's notion of utilitarianism, stated that, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill contrasts this with what he calls the "tyranny of the majority," declaring that utilitarianism requires that political arrangements satisfy the "liberty principle", whereby each person would be guaranteed the greatest possible liberty that would not interfere with the liberty of others, so that each person may maximize his or her happiness. This ideal would be echoed later by English philosopher Herbert Spencer when he espoused the "law of equal liberty," stating that "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon advocated an anarchist version of social contract which was not between individuals and the state, but rather "an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society". One of his famous statements is that "anarchy is order." In his formulation of mutualism, he asserted that labor is the only legitimate form of property, stating "property is freedom", rejecting both private and collective ownership of property "property is theft!". However, he later abandoned his rejection of property, and endorsed private property "as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual."

By the early 20th Century, mainstream thought in many parts of the world began to diverge from an almost exclusive focus on negative liberty and free markets to a more positive assertion of rights promoted by the Progressive movement in the United States and the socialist movement in Europe. Rather than government existing merely to "secure the rights" of free people, many began to agitate for the use of government power to promote positive rights. This change is exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, two of which are negative, namely restricting governments from infringing "freedom of speech" and "freedom of worship," and two of which were positive, declaring a "freedom from want", i.e., government delivery of domestic and foreign aid, and a "freedom from fear", i.e., an internationalist policy for imposing peace between nations.

As "liberal" came to be identified with Progressive policies in several English-speaking countries during the 1920s and 1930s, many of those who espoused the original, minimal-state philosophy began to distinguish their doctrine by calling themselves "classical liberals."

In the early 20th Century, the rise of Nazism in Germany and communism in Russia were generally seen as distinct movements, with the latter bearing more resemblance to the Progressive movement in the West, and gaining much sympathy from many of its advocates. A group of central European economists called the Austrian school challenged that distinction between various brands of totalitarianism by identifying the common collectivist underpinning to their doctrines, and claiming that collectivism in all its forms is inherently antithetical to liberty as traditionally understood in the West. These thinkers included Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Walter Block, the latter describing the "non-aggression axiom as the linchpin" of libertarianism. The Austrian School had a powerful impact on both economic teaching and libertarian principles. In the latter half of the 20th century, the term "libertarian," which had earlier been associated with anarchism, came to be adopted by those whose attitudes bore closer resemblance to "classical liberals."

Libertarian philosophy in the academy

Seminars in libertarianism were being taught in the U.S. starting in the 1960's, including a personal studies seminar at SUNY Geneseo starting in 1972. Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of acceptance in the academy with the publication of Harvard professor Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. Left-liberal philosopher Thomas Nagel famously argued that Nozick's libertarianism was 'without foundations' because Nozick's libertarianism proceeded from the assumption that individuals owned themselves without any further explanation.

Jan Narveson aimed to meet this challenge. Based on the work of David Gauthier, Narveson developed contractarian libertarianism, outlined in his 1988 work The Libertarian Idea, and then extended in his 2002 work Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice. In these works, Narveson agreed with Hobbes that individuals would lay down their ability to kill and steal from each other in order to leave the state of nature, but he broke with Hobbes in arguing that an absolute state was not necessary to enforce this agreement. Narveson argues that no state at all is required. Other advocates of contractarian libertarianism include the founder of the public choice school of economics and Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan, and Hungarian-French philosopher Anthony de Jasay.

Left-libertarians

There is also a camp of libertarians in Anglo-American Political Philosophy who hold egalitarian principles with the ideas of individual freedom and property rights. They call themselves "left-libertarians". Left-libertarians believe that the initial distribution of property is naturally egalitarian in nature, such that either persons cannot legally appropriate property privately and exclusively or they must obtain permission of all within the political community to do so. Some left-libertarians even use the Lockean proviso in such a way as to promote redistributive types of justice in ways seemingly compatible with libertarian rights of self-ownership. Some left-libertarians in modern times include Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Michael Otsuka, whose book Libertarianism Without Inequality is one of the most egalitarian leaning libertarian texts currently in publication.

Criticisms of left-libertarianism have come from both the right and left alike. Right-libertarians like Robert Nozick hold that self-ownership and property acquisition need not meet egalitarian standards, they must merely follow the Lockean idea of not worsening the situation of others. Gerald Cohen, an Analytical Marxist philosopher, has extensively criticized left-libertarianism's virtues of self-ownership and equality. In his Self-ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cohen claims that any system that takes equality and its enforcement seriously is not consistent with the robust freedom and full self-ownership of libertarian thought. Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has responded to Cohen's critique in 'Critical Review'[2] and has provided a guide to the literature criticizing libertarianism in his bibliographical review essay on "The Literature of Liberty" in The Libertarian Reader, ed. by David Boaz [3].

Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"

File:Ayn Rand Reason.jpg

The libertarian Reason magazine dedicated an issue to Ayn Rand's influence one hundred years after her birth.

Main article: Libertarianism and Objectivism

Libertarianism and Objectivism have a complex relationship. Though they share many of the same political goals, many Objectivists see libertarians as plagiaristic. These Objectivists (including Ayn Rand) claim that libertarians use Objectivist ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them". Some libertarians see Objectivists as dogmatic, unrealistic, and uncompromising. According to Reason editor Nick Gillespie in the magazine's March 2005 issue focusing on Objectivism's influence, Ayn Rand is "one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement... Rand remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture" in general and in libertarianism in particular. Still, he confesses that he is embarrassed by his magazine's association with her ideas. In the same issue, Cathy Young says that "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand's ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild." Though they reject what they see as Randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still believe that "Rand's message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for libertarianism.

Objectivists often disagree with the non-interventionism or improperly-termed "isolationism" of many libertarians. They argue that when it is in a nation's self-interest (defensive or "zero-sum game" survival interest) to do so, the state can and should act militarily abroad, even proactively (but typically only to ensure that the world does not fall to a totalitarian regime). Many also would like to see the state more aggressively protect the rights of US individuals and corporations abroad - that would include military action in response to nationalization. They more generally disagree with libertarians who typically consider state and government "necessary evils". For Objectivists, a government limited to protection of its citizens' rights is an absolutely necessary and moral institution. Objectivists are opposed to all anarchist currents and are suspicious of libertarians' lineage with individualist anarchism.

Libertarian politics

While the traditional political spectrum is a line, the Nolan chart turns it to a plane to repose libertarianism in a wider gamut of political thought.

Especially in the United States and Canada, libertarianism is often looked at as a right-wing philosophy, especially by non-libertarians, since in those two countries, libertarians tend to have more in common with traditional conservatives than liberals, especially with regards to economic and gun control policies. However, many often describe libertarians as being "conservative" on economic issues and "liberal" on social issues. Most libertarians also consider a "Constitutional Republic" (a Republic limited sharply by the United States' Constitution) to be a better form of government than what is typically recognized as an "unrestricted" Democracy, which they see as "the tyranny of the majority". (For example, as constitutionalist republicans, most libertarians view Texas congressman Ron Paul (R-14) to be a philosophical libertarian, even though he is technically affiliated with the "Republican" Party.)

This is not necessarily an accurate description, since the philosophy really doesn't fall strictly into a left-right designation. Libertarians reject the categorization of their political philosophy in term of right-wing and left-wing. For example, libertarianism opposes the illegalization of drugs and the prohibition of "hate speech".

Another way to understand where libertarians fit into the political spectrum would be to contrast the view with both liberalism, which favors government action to promote equality, and conservativism, which favors government action to promote order. Libertarianism favors freedom and opposes government action to promote either equality or order, in the understanding that order is emergent from a state of justice. For example, conservatives are likely to support a ban on same-sex marriage, in the interests of preserving the traditional order, liberals are likely to favor allowing same-sex marriage, in the interest of guaranteeing equality under the law, and libertarians are likely to attack the notion of government-sanctioned marriage itself. In specific, they typically deny that the government deserves any role in marriage other than enforcing whatever legal contract people choose to bind themselves to, and to oppose the various additional rights currently granted to married people.

The related case of discrimination in the workplace is perhaps even more illuminating. Here, liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, conservatives would typically allow or even encourage such discrimination, but libertarians could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter because these would infringe on the property rights of both the business owner and the justly-hired employees. In other words, even if a particular libertarian feels strongly that various groups being discriminated against should have equality, he would say that intervening to establish this equality should not be the role of the government. If a business discriminates against you, you are "free" to work elsewhere, or possibly start your own business which follows your personal belief structure. The libertarians ability to distinguish between equality and freedom in this instance demonstrates his belief that equality of position is not a necessary condition of freedom, especially the freedom to enter into agreements in an un-coerced manner. By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights.

Instead of a "left-right" spectrum, some libertarians use a two-dimensional space, with "personal freedom" on one axis and "economic freedom" on the other, which is called the Nolan chart. Named after David Nolan, who designed the chart and also founded the United States Libertarian Party, the chart is similar to a socio-political test used to place individuals by the Advocates for Self Government. A first approximation of libertarian politics (derived from these charts) is that they agree with liberals on social issues and with conservatives on economic issues. Thus, the traditional linear scale of governmental philosophy could be represented inside the chart stretching from the upper left corner to the lower right, while the degree of state control is represented linearly from the lower left to the upper right. (See below for criticism of this chart and its use.)

The libertarian movement

The Libertarian Program is an international project to define and document key current and potential voluntary replacements of government programs.

Some, such as David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian U.S think tank, the Cato Institute, argue that the term classical liberalism should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy, and because of differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. Nevertheless, the Cato Institute's official stance is that classical liberalism and libertarianism are synonymous; they prefer the term "liberal" to describe themselves, but choose not to use it because of its confusing connotation in some English-speaking countries (most self-described liberals prefer a mixed economy rather than a free market economy). The Cato Institute dislikes adding "classical" because, in their view, "the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy". Thus, they finally settle on "libertarian", as it avoids backward implications and confused definitions.

Libertarians and their allies are not a homogeneous group, but have collaborated to form think tanks, political parties, and other projects. For example, Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard co-founded the John Randolph Club, the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the Cato Institute to support an independent libertarian movement, and joined David Nolan in founding the United States Libertarian Party in 1971. (Rothbard ceased activity with the Libertarian Party in 1985 and some of his followers like Lew Rockwell are hostile to the group.) In the U.S. today, some libertarians support the Libertarian Party, some support no party, and some attempt to work within more powerful parties despite their differences. The Republican Liberty Caucus (a wing of the Republican Party) promotes libertarian views. A similar organization, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, exists within the Democratic Party, but is less organized. Republican Congressman Ron Paul is also a member of the Libertarian Party and was once its presidential candidate.

File:Movimiento Libertario Logo.gif

The Movimiento Libertario is one of the most successful libertarian political parties in the world.

Costa Rica's Movimiento Libertario (Libertarian Movement) is a prominent non-U.S. libertarian party that occupies roughly 10% of Costa Rica's national legislature. The Movimiento Libertario is considered the first libertarian organization in history to achieve substantial electoral success at the national level.

The Hong Kong Liberal Party is another example of a political party with libertarian leanings on the economic level. It is the second largest political party in the Legislative Council, however the majority of the party's success are a result of Hong Kong's unique electoral system which allows business groups to elect half the legislature while the other half is directly elected.

There are other Libertarian parties that have had various amounts of success throughout the world. Libertarianism is emerging in France with the inception of Liberté Chérie ("Cherished Liberty"), a thinktank and activist association that has 2000 members. Liberté Chérie gained significant publicity when it managed to draw 80,000 Parisians into the streets to demonstrate against government employees who were striking.

In 2001, the Free State Project was founded by Jason Sorens, a political scientist and libertarian activist who argued that 20,000 libertarians should migrate to a single U.S. state in order to concentrate their activism. In August of 2003, the membership of the Free State Project chose New Hampshire. However, as of 2005, there are concerns over the low rate of growth in signed Free State Project participants. In addition, discontented Free State Project participants, in protest of the choice of New Hampshire, started rival projects, including the Free West Alliance, and North to the Future, a project for a Free Alaskan Nation, to concentrate activism in a different state or region. There is also a European Free State Project.

Controversies among libertarians

These controversies are addressed in separate articles:

• Libertarian perspectives on capitalism: Most libertarians support deregulation and free trade because they believe that people should be able to start and grow businesses, manufacture, transport, trade, buy, and sell with little interference from the government. Some may support efforts to limit private monopolies. Some libertarians like Milton Friedman prefer market reforms like school vouchers to the status quo while others like Lew Rockwell see such programs as a threat to private industry and as a covert means of expanding government.
• Libertarian perspectives on redistribution: Most libertarians oppose forced redistribution and government welfare because they consider forced redistribution as a form of "legalized theft." Some may support minimal, temporary public support.
• Libertarian perspectives on taxes: Most libertarians support low taxes and a balanced budget because they believe citizens should keep most of the money they earn, while more extreme libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, believe in abolishing taxes altogether.
• Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues. On foreign policy, civil liberties, and some social issues, libertarians ally with modern liberals. Others ally with isolationist, religious paleoconservatives, despite sharp disagreement on economic and social issues. Others refuse to ally with any political party other than their own, and will never vote for a mainstream candidate. Most voting libertarians typically will only vote for a candidate that is philosopically libertarian, the only good example of which in the U.S. are a few philosophically-proven libertarian Republicans like congressman Ron Paul (TX-R-14) and Michigan Leon Drolet. Those that choose to vote for whichever main party matches their goals and ideals are called small-l libertarians (l) or "philosophical libertarians" due to the fact that they are more willing to compromise to advance individual liberty. In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election a small number of "small-l libertarians" advocated Howard Dean for president in the primaries, due to his belief in gun rights and his moderate approval of free trade, and their fear of John Kerry and George Bush as even worse political choices. A small number of philosophical libertarians voted for George Bush fearing John Kerry would be even less in favor of free trade than Bush. A vastly greater number of philosophical libertarians either abstained from voting entirely (typically in their belief that the Libertarian Candidate for 2004 was poorly-chosen), or voted for the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik, anyway, believing both major party choices in 2004 were so politically similar that there was no significant difference between them. Often times, Libertarians vote for whom they believe will lose an election in order to make the election closer, to fight the idea that either of the two freedom-opposing major parties has a "mandate."
• Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property: Some libertarians believe that property rights in ideas (and other intangibles) should be identical to property rights in physical goods, as they see both justified by natural rights. Others justify intellectual property for utilitarian reasons. They argue that intellectual property rights are required to maximize innovation. Still others believe that "intellectual property" is a euphemism for intellectual protectionism and should be abolished altogether.
• Libertarian perspectives on immigration: Libertarians of the Natural Law variety generally support freedom of movement, but more nationalistic and inconsistent libertarians argue that open borders amount to legalized trespassing. The debate often centers on self-ownership of our bodies and whether we have the freedom to hire anyone without the federal government's permission. Another form of the debate centers on the political exploitation of the perception that immigrants often abuse tax-funded government resources, and that the demand would be lessened if there were fewer immigrants. Libertarians in the United States' Southern border states thus often find themselves in the position of appearing to endorse restrictions on immigration (to remain electorally viable), while endorsing the enforcement of existing laws (out of necessity of eliminating corruption and favoritism), while intending to change the unjust laws by eliminating tax-funded labor for all, while seeking to allow immigration. This is the purest libertarian resolution possible until the public is better educated on the issue. "Consequentialist libertarians" may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy.
• Libertarian perspectives on abortion: A controversy is the role of the state in regulating abortion, if it is in fact unethical. In the United States, some on both sides of this debate agree that this should be settled by the states instead of the federal government, thereby invalidating Roe v. Wade on grounds that the federal government violates traditional state self-police powers. American libertarians who are not states-rights advocates, on the other hand, prefer for the issue to be settled at whatever level of government (or no level of government, if they are anarcho-capitalists) will reach the best decision. A small number of libertarians view abortion to be an initiation of force against the fetus, and therefore wrong, although the majority of libertarians view the fetus' early stages of development to be under the control of the female or individual(s) bearing responsibility for its development.
• Libertarian perspectives on the death penalty: Some libertarians support the death penalty on self-defense or retributive justice grounds. Others see it as an excessive abuse of state power. Many consitutionalist libertarians disavow the death penalty for its irreversible nature, as well as its perceived conflict with the Bill of Rights' ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".
• Libertarian perspectives on foreign intervention: Most libertarians are suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. Others (such as those influenced by Objectivism) argue that intervention is not unethical when a foreign government is abusing the rights of its citizens but whether a nation should intervene depends on its own self-interest.
• Libertarian perspectives on gay rights: Most libertarians feel that adults have a right to choose their own lifestyle or sexual preference, provided that such expression does not trample on the same freedom of other people to choose their own sexual preference or religious freedom. Yet, there has been some debate among libertarians as to how to respond to the issue of gay marriage. The controversy arises virtually entirely from the current involvement of the State in heterosexual marriage. The philosophically pure libertarian answer is to treat all marriage contracts as legal contracts only, and to require that the terms of the marriage are spelled out clearly in the contract, allowing any number of legal adults to marry under any conditions that are legally enforceable, thus ending the implicit government-endorsement of all marriage contracts, including heterosexual ones. If the state no longer endorses only certain marriages as legitimate, there is no inequality, and gays, lesbians, polygamists, etc... can all draw up their own private legal contracts, just the same as heterosexuals could. The controversy arises from the fact that the State assumes that heterosexuals who did not draw up pre-nuptual agreements entered into a commonly recognized Christian ritual union that entitles the united parties to the use of the State's legal system as a means of cheaply filing a record of their marriage and of resolving disputes. This system is widely used by heterosexuals who have not prepared for the likelihood of divorce and later contractual dispute. Although the system is currently thus flawed, it is popular, and being that the grass is always greener on the other side, many gays who wish to marry seem to now want the same free ability to turn to the state in hopes that the same government assumptions of tax-funded contract protection that occasionally benefits heterosexuals. The dilemma for most libertarians arises from the fact that a currently unjust situation is popular. Heterosexuals currently have tax-funded protection and the assumption of enforceable contract resolution for their marriage contracts. Homosexuals often desire inclusion in this flawed system. Libertarians then, are caught in the situation of trying to expand an unjust system to grant incorrectly-perceived benefits, or to deny certain parties membership within that unjust system. Many libertarians advocate the concept that there can be no such thing as a just separation of people into differing status groups under the law, so the current definition of marriage must include all those who wish to marry, with the later goal of eliminating this increased role of government in marriage entirely. It is thus the consistent view amongst all libertarians that the best resolution of inequalities under the law for gays would best be resolved by eliminating all state involvement in marriage (for heterosexuals, gays, polygamists, etc...), rendering every living human exactly equal under the law. Failing that, it is commonly understood amongst politically-savvy libertarians that libertarian candidates must speak in generalities that allow voters who wish to remain ignorant of the complexities of the issue to do so, by believing that the Libertarian Party endorses whatever poorly-constructed half-solution they personally endorse. This is a necessary technique in the pursuit of electoral office which is used to prevent the necessity of violence towards the end of preserving individual rights.
• Libertarian perspectives on inheritance: Libertarians may disagree over what to do in absence of a will or contract in the event of death, and over posthumous property rights. In the event of a contract, the contract is enforced according to the property owner's wishes. Typically, libertarians believe that any unwilled property goes to remaining living relatives, and ideally, none of the property goes to the government in such a case. Many libertarians advocate the establishments of trusts to avoid taxation of property at the time of death.
• Libertarian perspectives on natural resources: Some libertarians, (such as free market environmentalists and objectivists) want to avoid mismanagement of public resources through private ownership of all natural resources, while others (such as geolibertarians) believe that such resources (especially land) cannot be considered property.
• Libertarian perspectives on animal rights: A small number of libertarians grant basic rights to animals (they count as individuals and therefore have the right not to be subjected to coercion), while others see animals as property, and think their owners are free to treat them as they wish.

The Libertarian Party approach to these issues is to say the focus is misplaced. Under the "Dallas Accord" LP members agreed that party documents and officials must focus on voluntary solutions and not favor any particular mode, be it minarchism or anything else. On social issues the Platform focuses on voluntary alternatives and civil institutions, not coercive government, as the correct problems-solving entity. Those concerned about defense and immigration should look to the voluntary actions underway encouraged or performed by the Libertarian Party or allied movements. The correct solution to foreign woes is more Libertarian policies and presumably Libertarians in all countries.

Criticism of libertarianism

Main article: Criticism of libertarianism

Critics of libertarianism from both the left and the right claim that libertarian ideas about individual economic and social freedom are contradictory, untenable or undesirable. Critics from the left tend to focus on the economic consequences, claiming that perfectly free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, undermines individual freedom for many people by creating social inequality, poverty, and lack of accountability for the most powerful. Criticism of libertarianism from the right tends to focus on issues of tradition and personal morality, claiming that the extensive personal freedoms promoted by libertarians encourage unhealthy and immoral behavior and undermine religion. Libertarians mindful of such criticisms claim that personal responsibility, private charity, and the voluntary exchange of goods and ideas are all consistent manifestations of an individualistic approach to liberty, and provide both a more effective and more ethical way to prosperity and peaceful coexistence. They often argue that in a truly capitalistic society, even the poorest would end up better off as a result of faster overall economic growth - which they believe likely to occur with lower taxes and less regulation.

Conservatives often argue that the state is needed to maintain social order and morality. They may argue that excessive personal freedoms encourage dangerous and irresponsible behavior resulting in externalities indirectly paid for by the collective society. If negative behaviors adversely affect society, then taxation can help to relieve this market failure with a new allocation of resources. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the drug war, and public education. Some, such as the conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review, consider libertarianism "a form of arrogant nihilism" that is both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like heroin addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes: "You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact." (Note: Libertarians do not advocate "absolute freedom," but insist that the freedom of action of each individual should be limited at the point where it would infringe on the freedom of others; also, it is very unusual for libertarians to advocate that children have the same liberty as adults).

Some liberals, such as John Rawls and Ernest Partridge, argue that implied social contracts and democracy justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can function only among "a well-knit community of citizens" that rests on social obligations that libertarians reject. These critics argue that without this foundation, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.

The argument that property itself is theft, promoted by many anarchists, would undermine almost all libertarian capitalist theory if successfully argued. Some also argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, and therefore lack rightful or complete claim. In the Americas, they argue, land was stolen from its Native American owners, but applies in any context where critics believe the power of the rich enables them to gain unearned profits at the expense of their workers. More deeply, it suggests that the distinction between "initiating" and reacting with force lacks a principled basis.

Other criticism focuses on economics. Critics argue that where libertarian economic theory (neo-classical and laissez-faire capitalism) has been implemented (as in Chile, 19th-century Britain, and 19th- and 20th-century U.S.), the results show that libertarian economic ideas threaten freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth. It ignores real market failures such as the human propensity for opportunistic behavior. In addition, some critics claim that libertarianism's anti-statism would eliminate some essential services. A frequently cited example is health care; critics argue that a lack of medical knowledge among consumers, and what they believe to be a moral requirement of society to provide service for those who cannot pay, make sufficient health care impossible in a completely free market. These critics claim that a nationalized health care system provides better outcomes than does the market, and that health care, contrary to libertarian positions, is a public good justifying coercion.

Such critics may argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" (as visualized in the Nolan Chart) is flawed because it ignores the effects that powerlessness and poverty have on liberty. Others argue that the associated political quiz is biased towards libertarianism or that the chart dismisses non-libertarian values. In particular, it portrays Libertarianism as being the greatest supporter for freedoms while failing to point out that only negative rights are endorsed. Libertarians respond by asserting that positive rights are unnatural rights, or rights by fiat.

Others critics, such as Jeffrey Friedman, editor of the journal Critical Review, argue that libertarians oversimplify issues such as the efficacy of state intervention, shifting the burden of proof to their opponents without justification. Friedman also argues that libertarian views on human nature consist more of "ideology and political crusading" than "scholarship," as when he claims that libertarians assume that people act to maximize their own utility or that their self-interested actions will always serve human needs better than government.

Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they support libertarian ideas only because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. For instance, Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy".

These critics contend that the support of WTO efforts by libertarians demonstrates that libertarians are satisfied with the global status quo and would like to "lock-in" the hegemonic advantages. Likewise, they say that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society. Some libertarians, however, deny the legitimacy of corporations as being government constructs.

Most economists agree that decentralized decision-making is an important part of efficient markets, but many economists argue that market failures tend to result unless government intervenes. While libertarians believe in the efficacy of free markets to allocate resources efficiently and equitably, they would not allow market forces to occasion any violations of individual negative liberty. Moreover, they oppose any coercion that would be employed to remedy what some perceive as "market failures", arguing that government intervention leads to government failure, a cure worse than the disease.[4]

Some critics see the libertarian view of property rights as a threat to the environment, rather than a cure. They also claim that many aspects of the environment, such as scenic beauty, are extremely hard to valuate.

Some critics claim that libertarianism would enable slavery per the self-ownership property right, repeal of labor laws, via contractual labor agreements, outright sale of future labor rights, and/or as a punishment for a person with unpaid debts as an indentured servant. There are even internal debates within libertarian camps as to the libertarian justification for contractual slavery [5] and indentured labor [6][7]Rothbard. The new libertarian rejoinder is that one's body, as Thomas Jefferson said of ideas, is not the subject of property, so slavery is de facto illegal, as is false imprisonment. This view parallels the long-standing common law principle that rights are unalienable, a condition that could not be satisfied if rights were treated as personal property (in the legal sense) and tradable commodities, even though this is not in any official libertarian platform, and the issue of voluntary servitude contracts are still debated within the libertarian ranks.

Some critics point out that libertarianism is untried, and that the benefits it claims it would produce have not been put to the test. Others would maintain that libertarianism is inherently unworkable in the real world, because, human nature being what it is, whatever organization was strong enough to enforce contracts and prohibit fraud would seize power and become a de facto government.

See also

• Cato Institute
• Christian libertarianism
• Criticisms of the War on Terrorism
• Civil liberties
• Digital gold bug
• Liberalism
• Libertarian International Organization
• Libertarian Party (United States)
• List of Libertarian Parties
• Libertarian socialism
• Objectivism
• Republitarianism
• Austrian School
• Capitalism
• Classic liberalism
• Chicago school
• American individualist anarchism
• Deregulation
• Republican Liberty Caucus
• Democratic Freedom Caucus
• List of libertarian celebrities
• List of libertarian politicians and media personalities
• List of notable libertarian theorists and authors
• Libertine
• Libertarian Management
• Tax resistance

References

• Block, Walter, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". February 17, 2003. Accessed 30 June, 2005.
• Brooke Shelbey Biggs, "You're Not the Boss of Me!", Wired, 21 July 1997.
• Boaz, David, "A Note on Labels: Why "Libertarian"?", accessed June 21, 2005 link
• Cleveland, Paul and Stevenson, Brian. Individual Responsibility and Economic Well-Being. The Freeman, August 1995.link
• Cubeddu, Raimondo. Preface of Prospettive del Libertarismo Etica & Politica Vol. V, No. 2, 2003.
• Franzen, Don Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org). MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)
• Fallon, Shannon. The Bill of Rights: What It Is, What It Means, and How It's Been Misused [8]
• Friedman, Jeffrey. What's Wrong With Libertarianism, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 3. Summer 1997PDF (large PDF file)
• Friedman, Milton. The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise. From: Friedman & Szasz on Liberty and Drugs, edited and with a Preface by Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. Washington, D.C.: The Drug Policy Foundation, 1992.link
• Gillespie, Nick. Rand Redux, Reason magazine, March 2005 link
• Goldberg, Jonah. Freedom Kills. National Review Online, December 12, 2001.link
• Harwood, Sterling, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, Co.), 582pp.
• Hayek, F.A. Why I am not a Conservative, University of Chicago Press, 1960link
• Hospers, John, Libertarianism (Santa Barbara, CA: Reason Press, 1971).
• Hospers, John, "Arguments for Libertarianism," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 47-57.
• Huben, Michael, A Non-Libertarian FAQ, March 15, 2005 link
• Kangas, Steve. Chile: the Laboratory Test. Liberalism Resurgent, link
• LaFollette, Hugh. "Why Libertarianism is Mistaken", in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 58-66.
• Levy, Jacob. SELF-CRITICISM, The Volokh Conspiracy, March 19, 2003 link
• Machan, Tibor R. Revisiting Anarchism and Government, link.
• Madison, James. Federalist Papers #10. Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787 link
• Nelson, Quee, "Quotations Concerning Libertarianism (Often Called Classical Liberalism)," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 67.
• Nettlau, Max. A Short History of Anarchism, 2000. p. 75
• Partridge, Ernest. "With Liberty and Justice for Some." Environmental Philosophy edited by Michael Zimmerman, Baird Callicott, Karen Warren, Irene Klaver, and John Clark, 2004.link
• Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand’s Q&A on Libertarians from a 1971 interview link
• Rockwell, Lew and Friedman, Milton. "Friedman v. Rockwell." Chronicles, December 1998. link
• Sanchez, Julian. "The Other Guevara." Reason magazine, August 12, 2003.link
• Yglesias, Matthew. "Health is Forever". April 15, 2005. link
• Young, Cathy. Ayn Rand at 100, Reason magazine. March 2005 link
• Advocates for Self Government website. "The World's Smallest Political Quiz".link
• The Capitalism Tour. Capitalism Magazine. link
• Advocates for Self Government website. "Russell Means—Libertarian" link
• Libertarian Party News. Murray Rothbard: 1926-1995, February 1995.link

The best egalitarian critique of libertarianism by a political philosopher is G.A. Cohen, Self-ownership, freedom and equality (CUP 1995).

External links

Libertarian political parties around the world

• Site of the United States Libertarian Party
• Site of the Personal Choice Party
• Site of Movimiento Libertario (Costa Rica)
• Site of Movimento Libertario (Italy) crude english translation here
• Site of ACT New Zealand, a self-described classical liberal party in New Zealand that is also sometimes described as libertarian
• Site of the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia
• Site of the Libertarian Society of Iceland
• Site of Rossiyskoye Libertarianskoye Dvizhenie [9] (Russian Libertarian Movement)
• Site of the Libertarian Party of Bangladesh
• Site of the Freedom Party of Canada
• Site of the Libertarian Party of Canada
• Site of the Free Democratic Party of Germany
• Site of the Free Democratic Party of Switzerland
• Site of Civil Resistance in Spanish: Resistencia Civil (Venezuela)
• Site of the Libertarische Partij (The Netherlands)
• Site of the United Civil Party of Belarus
• Site of the Ale Yarok Party of Israel
• Site of Det Liberale Folkepartiet of Norway

Libertarian think tanks

• site of the Cato Institute
• site of the Globalisation Institute
• site of the Institute for Liberal Values
• site of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• site of the Libertarian Alliance (British)
• site of the Advocates for Self-Government
• site of the International Society for Individual Liberty - see their Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty
• site of the Libertarian International Organization(Current News)
• site Center for Institutional Analysis and Development Romanian libertarian think tank
• site of the American Liberty Foundation
• site of the Foundation for Economic Education
• site of the Institute for Humane Studies
• site of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute
• site of the Future of Freedom Foundation
• site of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian School economics)
• site of the Adam Smith Institute
• site of The Independent Institute
• site of the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (Australia)
• site of the Copenhagen Institute (Denmark)
• site of the Libertarian Nation Foundation
• site of Institut Constant de Rebecque (Switzerland)
• site of Free Buffalo/Free New York
• site of Nova Libertas
• site of Московский Либертариум - Moscow Libertarium (Russia)
• site of Instituto Libertario (Costa Rica)
• site of the Hayek Institute (Belgium/France)

Other libertarian political projects

• site of the Free State Project
• site European Free State Project
• site of the Libertarian International
• site of the Seastead
• Oceania a libertarian project terminated in 1994
• site of College Libertarian Central
• site of The Association of Libertarian Feminists
• site of Liberté Chérie "Beloved Freedom" - French libertarian activist association

Publications and Websites about Libertarianism

• John Hospers, Libertarianism (Nash Publishing, 1971).
• Catallarchy blog]
• Junk, a Libertarian Drug War Satire
• [10] Liberteen a Libertarian website for teenagers.
• What is a libertarian? From Al Barger's US Senate campaign website
• Libertarian communist library - left libertarian text archive
• For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard
• Liberty Ideas
• European Libertarians
• Open Directory libertarian links List of Notable Libertarian Theorists and Authors web page
• site of the Libertarian Learning Centre
• site of Libertarian.org
• site of Laissez Faire Books
• site of The Tao of Liberty
• site of The Freeman
• site of Liberty
• site of Liberator Online
• site for Thomas Szasz
• site of Lew Rockwell
• Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky? Richard Wall, August 17, 2004. LewRockwell.com
• site of Freedom Daily
• site of Reason magazine (a libertarian magazine)
• site of The Free Liberal newspaper (a left-leaning libertarian newspaper)
• site of the Free Market News Network
• The Libertarian Enterprise
• site of Free Talk Live (libertarian radio show)
• The Freedom Works Talk Show with important guests
• Libertari.org Italian libertarian/anarcho-capitalist site
• The New Libertarian A journal of Neolibertarian thought
• site of UK based Society for Individual Freedom
• site of Libertarian Wiki
• site of Hammer of Truth
• Rebellion Coffee Co. Libertarian Blog
• site (Danish)
• Smygo News & views for Anarchists & Activists.
• The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia — A Critique The Anarcho-Libertarian Utopia — A Critique, By Drieu Godefridi (Hayek Institute).
• Sterling Harwood, Dr. Sterling Harwood's Homepage, www.sterlingharwood.com
• Thoughts from a libertarian Democrat
• Virginia Postrel's Website
• Individualist Feminism Website

Sites about libertarianism

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on libertarianism
• Libertarian FAQ
• World's Shortest Libertarian FAQ
• Libertarianism Livejournal community
• Libertarian Web Log
• The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism is Not Right Wing by J. C. Lester
• The Jeremy West Show: Libertarian Talk (about liberty)
• A Non-Libertarian FAQ Huben, Michael