Libertarianism

Reader David asked me to comment on libertarianism.  I'll first take a look at what libertarianism is and believes and then I'll share my perspectives on its usefulness for our society.  You can find a good definition and background explanation of the development of libertarian thought in the WordIQ article here.  The Libertarian Party of the United States provides an excellent synopsis of its beliefs on various issues in its 2010 Libertarian Party Platform.

The fundamental idea of libertarianism is, as the word implies, to maximize individual liberty.  Libertarians believe that all rights originate with the individual and that collective, national or government entities have no rights or prerogatives.  In this view, individuals should enjoy the maximum freedom possible in their economic, personal and private lives to do as they see fit with as little restriction as possible.  Basically, everyone should take care of themselves and no one should be obligated to contribute to the welfare of anyone else. 

Not all libertarians agree on every detail, but based on the philosophical basis described in the previous paragraph, most libertarians are minarchists, people who believe there should be a government but that its responsibilities should be strictly minimal.  The Libertarian Party Platform identifies governmental responsibilities as enforcing property rights and contracts, enforcing laws against force and fraud, and national defense and intelligence.

The 2010 Platform document shows they do not feel that government has legitimate authority to do such things as tax people or regulate the economy, including trade and the prevention of monopolies.  They oppose any regulation of immigration or the environment, personal behavior such as drug use or consensual sexual relations, and the institution of a military draft under any circumstances.  People's retirement, medical care and education should be their own responsibilities, thus programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the public school systems ought to be abolished. 

As most thinking people will ascertain from what they have read so far, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy.  It has a total faith in private decision making and none at all in group decision making or in society acting together or though its elected representatives to protect its own rights and interests from individual threats or dangers.  Back in 2010 I did one of these blogs ("What Rand Paul Means") on the views of libertarian-leaning Republican Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, relating how in an interview he took issue with such laws as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws.  In his interview, Paul asserted the superiority of property rights over human rights.  He said, for example, that a restaurant owner ought to be able to racially discriminate in his own place of business and that BP should have been able to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to its heart's content.

Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman and current Republican Presidential candidate.  The father of Rand Paul, Ron is a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee.  Much of his support this year has come from younger voters, most of whom are male.  I would surmise that libertarianism may have a particular appeal to some younger people because of its simplicity.  It is indeed logically consistent.  Just take all the controls off everything; there is no need to think about anything except one's own self-interest.  And young men, in particular, tend to consider themselves invulnerable.  They think they will never be old and sick, or laid off and broke.

The reality, however, is that the libertarian utopian vision is impractical in the extreme.  I believe a nation governed under strongly libertarian principles would descend into a hellish chaos.  Without counter cyclical policies, recessions would be deeper and last longer.  Pollution would rage uncontrolled.  Racial, ethnic and gender discrimination would return.  A monopoly or syndicalized cartel would soon control every aspect of the economy, pauperizing the citizenry and likely setting up a corporative fascist-style society.  Only the wealthy could afford to school their children or medically insure themselves.  The elderly and infirm would consequently starve in their hovels and epidemics would rage uncontrolled.  The gap between the wealthy few and the desperate many would come to resemble that of France and Russia on the eves of their respective cataclysmic revolutions.  The final chapter would, I feel, entail such a revolution happening here.