Topic: Politics
Libertarians, Liberals and Conservatives. Confused? You are probably not talking to a Libertarian!by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Friday, August 28, 2009
While the Libertarian position is the least understood political outlook, it is by far the simplest to comprehend. Most people believe they understand what a Conservative or a Liberal might stand for, yet these two positions are far more confounding than the fundamental concepts of Libertarianism.
Historically, both the Liberal and the Conservative positions were much closer to a Libertarian viewpoint. In fact, the fairly recent formation of the Libertarian movement is a good indicator of this. It is the loss of their fundamentals by these two dominant viewpoints and the tendency toward the extreme, rather than the commonly held misconception that these viewpoints are "moderate", that have helped substantiate the Libertarian position. In fact, the early founders of Libertarian thought had influences from both the Conservative and Liberal leanings.
In this comparison, we will only use commonly held "modern" Liberal and Conservative views for our frame of reference. By doing this, it becomes plainly evident that the Libertarian position has little in common with either modern position.
Use of force is perhaps the most important concept and demonstrates the wide gulf that lies between free thought and political polarity. Libertarians believe that in no case with the exception of self-defense shall aggressive force ever be used. The entire philosophy is built on this premise. Humans should not aggress physically toward other humans or force others to do things they don’t wish to do.
Liberals and Conservatives both thrive on the use of force. In fact, their political philosophy is based on forcing others to see the "rightness" or "correctness" of their views and then enforce the action necessary to bring those views to fruition through the power of big government.
War is the fundamental example. War is only justified in complete self defense. Most all Libertarians believe that their physical space must be violated and they must be attacked to warrant retaliatory aggression.
Conservatives support War and the War Machine for various reasons. Iraq is a good example. The reasons are as long as your grocery list and none of them qualify as a Libertarian justification for attacking a sovereign nation. Iraq is simply an immoral action of the State. Ganny is no different. Searching for the perpetrators of 911 is one thing; a major, almost ten year, futile military war is another.
Liberals sometimes back wars for "humanitarian" reasons. Genocide or other injustices are considered reasons for entering or "creating" war. Intervention into certain conflicts appears to be justified in their view. Roosevelt is a case in point. This demonstrates the "utilitarian" principles that guide both viewpoints, the ends can justify the means. Libertarians refrain from the utilitarian position.
In this way, Libertarians also believe the only crime is against another. One cannot commit a crime against oneself. Drugs, suicide, pornography, prostitution and abortion are examples. Of course, Libertarians believe children should be protected from exposure or involvement in areas that adults are capable of handling themselves. And, all laws of harm and injury apply in these cases. All acts must be consensual.
Conservatives see drug use as a crime and support the "war" against drugs. They also support increased enforcement and incarceration. Confiscating the fruits of citizen’s work through taxation to pay for the high cost of the drug war is not a problem, no matter their constant clamoring for lower taxes. To conservatives, drugs are a great evil that needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. Pornography and prostitution are criminal offenses against society.
Liberals love to spend money on drug treatment programs and recovery programs. They see addiction as a sickness that some fall "victim" to and they need to be helped and the State is best agency, in their mind, for that job. Again, prostitutes and porn "addicts" are victims, in the sense they need help from someone who knows better.
Conservatives believe the State should prevent abortion, they know exactly when life begins. Liberals believe the State should help facilitate abortions to those who cannot afford it, and some seem to believe life never actually begins. Libertarians believe a woman’s body is her property. The grey area appears as the determination as to what point the aborted pregnancy might be considered aggression against another living human. No human has this precise answer, even if they claim to.
Absence of force is also an economic phenomenon. All agreements between parties must be consensual on both sides. The economy must be free of any forced intervention by any actor, including the government. The government’s sole role in the marketplace is to ensure the absence of force and to prevent theft, fraud and deception and of course, harm and injury. Much of this is the domain of the courts. The courts should be free to operate as provided under the Constitution, without limits imposed by special interests.
Libertarians detest the Federal Reserve and believe it is the root of many of our economic and social problems.
Liberals see the "free market" [they refer to what is out there as the "free market"] as having shortcomings and failings and it must be guided by the intervention of government and regulated by its agencies. Forcing us to pay for these "corrections" is done for the "common good". We will be better off after everything is "fixed". They see corporations as sometimes tending towards "evil" and needing to be controlled but apparently don’t recognize that they wouldn’t exist without the sanction of the same State they want to control them. Free trade is guaranteeing that American labor won’t lose out to cheap offshore labor. Liberals tend to want to "force" labor issues on all, including the laborer. Liberals believe the courts should be used to protect the worker and those disadvantaged by the vagaries of the economic system.
Most Liberals are unaware of the workings of the Federal Reserve and if anything accept the mainstream economic spin that it is a necessary "quasi" arm of the government. They point to the evil "profits" of the financial sector, rather than the great facilitator the Federal Reserve is to these profits.
Conservatives point to the "status quo" as the "free market" [again what is out there]. They are adamantly against any "regulations" that might hinder profit margins but have no problems with regulations that allow monopolies and favoritism towards special corporate interests. Free trade is paving the way for American corporations and limiting what foreign nations can do about it. They are against government intervention unless it involves "bailouts" and other actions that must be done to "save" our free market. Certainly strong labor corporations like GM shouldn’t be bailed out but banks are OK, if Bernie says so! Labor movements should be thwarted and discouraged, whether voluntary or not. Conservatives believe court settlements are extreme and should be limited to protect segments of our economy.
Conservatives are a bit more aware of the Federal Reserve, but certainly not scholars on the subject. If anything, they favor the entry of currency into the economy through the financial system rather than a result of production of value. They see nothing wrong with profit in the financial sector and don’t look into the fictitious source of that profit for fear of finding out things they really rather not know.
Both sides support government debt with their love of big government. Liberals love the welfare aspect and Conservatives love the warfare. Neither really attacks the defense budget with any conviction although an occasional Liberal will put out some good spin every once in awhile. Both are afraid of Social Security, although an occasional conservative will bring it up when it isn’t election year. No conservative will touch Medicare, but it can be said to be threatened by Liberal health legislation to pit people against the new Liberal legislation.
The struggle and compromise is not about market principles or government budgets but special interest projects. Defense bills are traded for public works projects. Corporate tax breaks are traded for unemployment extensions. Money for parks is traded for capital gains tax cuts. A bit of wilderness is put aside in exchange for periodic removal of gas and oil royalties.
Libertarians know that there is no reason any person should care who or what any other person marries other than who they themselves marry! The State has absolutely no right to intrude in the relationships people decide to enter into, whether or not they resolve in Marriage. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the State. The State should treat all citizens equal under the law regardless of their marital status or lack thereof.
Liberals campaign for recognition of Gay and other relationships and fight for guaranteeing rights and benefits for those who choose "alternative" relationships. They believe the State should control Marriage and recognize Gay marriage as it does heterosexual.
Conservatives want their belief that only a Man and Woman can rightfully marry instituted by the State. Many don’t recognize gay marriage and want the State to hold the same view under law.
Libertarians believe taxation is a forced confiscation of private property. Most who don’t hold a position of Anarchy will acquiescence to "user" fees, sometimes including land fees. They see this as a market principle with the government providing services and the citizen paying the fees as he uses the services. In this way, the agreement is consensual.
Conservatives rail against taxes, but on the other hand want big government for their defense, moral imperative and corporate subsidy programs. What they don’t want is to be taxed themselves. The trickle down theory is alive and well.
Liberals are not ashamed of taxation. Redistribution for the "common good" is a fundamental to their mode of operation. Most of the battle takes place at the upper end of the tax range, where liberals fight for higher rates and conservatives fight against.
What is befuddling to me is the lack of concentration of removal of taxes on the lower end. Elimination of any taxation of workers earning less than thirty five thousand dollars a year would certainly solve many of our social and economic problems without any added government programs. How can Liberals not see this possibility and how could Conservatives fight a program like that? Or vice versa? I believe it truly shows that they have both lost their basic principles and instead see Big Government as the only means to enforce their agendas.
Many Conservatives, like Alan Greenspan, like to align themselves with Libertarians and use catch phrases like "freedom" and "liberty" to punctuate their tirades. Like Alan Greenspan, they are unaware of who they truly are and what they truly believe. Liberals either are completely unaware of what Libertarians are about or align Libertarians with the "status quo". This could be partly based on hearing Conservatives claim they are Libertarians.
Liberals no longer liberate. They attempt to "free" others of their burdens by tying us all to an enormous government and corporate alliance that turns simple jobs, supplying people’s basic needs, into super sized industries.
Conservatives still conserve, just different things than they used to. They strive to conserve the "status quo" of corporate business, along with the government programs and subsidies that make it all possible. Rather than let Capital flow along its normal course, seeking the segment of the economy where it is most needed, they want big government to direct it where they believe it should be.
The Libertarian viewpoint is simple. If you are getting confused, you are probably listening to a Liberal or Conservative!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You make a lot of mistakes and unfounded assumptions.
While the Libertarian position is the least understood political outlook, it is by far the simplest to comprehend. Most people believe they understand what a Conservative or a Liberal might stand for, yet these two positions are far more confounding than the fundamental concepts of Libertarianism.
Anyone can learn about Libertarianism by googling the word or the phrase "Libertarian Party". It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they find it impractical. And what you find "confounding" is the result of the Conservatives' and Liberals' having a diversity of views and methods. No two people are exactly alike, not even in their politics. Some people are even centrists, mixing the two together. Libertarians seem to be so far out that they are virtual nihilists (google THAT word).
Use of force is perhaps the most important concept and demonstrates the wide gulf that lies between free thought and political polarity. Libertarians believe that in no case with the exception of self-defense shall aggressive force ever be used. The entire philosophy is built on this premise. Humans should not aggress physically toward other humans or force others to do things they don’t wish to do.
Liberals and Conservatives both thrive on the use of force. In fact, their political philosophy is based on forcing others to see the "rightness" or "correctness" of their views and then enforce the action necessary to bring those views to fruition through the power of big government.
ANY governmental actions, including actions of self-defense, involve force. And government can also "defend" the rest of society against predatory giant corporations via regulation and the forcible breakup of trusts and monopolies. If you imply that's somehow a bad thing, I'd have to wonder if you are a corporate CEO. The idea that the market that corporations function in should operate without government restraint is totally self-serving from the corporate executives' perspective.
Liberals sometimes back wars for "humanitarian" reasons. Genocide or other injustices are considered reasons for entering or "creating" war. Intervention into certain conflicts appears to be justified in their view. Roosevelt is a case in point. This demonstrates the "utilitarian" principles that guide both viewpoints, the ends can justify the means. Libertarians refrain from the utilitarian position.
I would not have wanted to live in a Libertarian America in 1941. It would have fought back against Japan, but left Europe at the mercy of Hitler. That's just stupid. If you don't fight evils like genocide, you condone them. No true libertarian, or beleiver in human rights at all, would do that!
Most Liberals are unaware of the workings of the Federal Reserve and if anything accept the mainstream economic spin that it is a necessary "quasi" arm of the government. They point to the evil "profits" of the financial sector, rather than the great facilitator the Federal Reserve is to these profits.
Again, one can learn how the Federal Reserve works by looking it up on the internet or in library books. It should be obvious that without the money coined and printed by the Federal Reserve, profits would be impossible.
Liberals no longer liberate. They attempt to "free" others of their burdens by tying us all to an enormous government and corporate alliance that turns simple jobs, supplying people’s basic needs, into super sized industries.
Are you sure you are not talking about Conservatives when you say that? Oops!
Conservatives still conserve, just different things than they used to.
Indeed, in America they used to conserve Jim Crow laws. Before that, they conserved slavery. Before that, they tried to conserve servatude to the British monarch. They failed each time, because Liberals beat them.
I'm at bat. Beginning of the 11th. Bases loaded. Here comes the pitch:
[He] make a lot of mistakes and unfounded assumptions.
Probably. But then again, there are mistakes in your argument as well. Sloppiness doesn't excuse more sloppiness.
Anyone can learn about Libertarianism by googling the word or the phrase "Libertarian Party". It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they find it impractical. And what you find "confounding" is the result of the Conservatives' and Liberals' having a diversity of views and methods. No two people are exactly alike, not even in their politics. Some people are even centrists, mixing the two together. Libertarians seem to be so far out that they are virtual nihilists (google THAT word).
Actually, what's confounding is exactly like he said- the duplicity in the names. Conservatism is only conservative about ONE thing: economics, while applying a different set of rules to personal freedoms in the name of morality.
Liberals do the same thing, just reversed, see? I won't say they mistakenly divide freedom up, since neither side can agree on the definition of freedom, but I believe they've got their names mixed up, since libertarians used to be called "classical liberals".
This means that once upon a time, free market economics was liberal economics, and tariffs, moral legislation - things those guys opposed- was conservative. Times change. That's what he was getting at. Plus, your assertion that libertarians are nihilists is piss-poor. Nihilists reject any and all moral arguments as to the meaning of life; libertarians do believe in morals- namely the NAP (google that). The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins- that's a principle example of force.
ANY governmental actions, including actions of self-defense, involve force. And government can also "defend" the rest of society against predatory giant corporations via regulation and the forcible breakup of trusts and monopolies. If you imply that's somehow a bad thing, I'd have to wonder if you are a corporate CEO. The idea that the market that corporations function in should operate without government restraint is totally self-serving from the corporate executives' perspective.
Again, see the NAP. Self-defense is justified, force is pre-eminent aggression. You come at me with your fists, I retaliate- I can claim I was defending myself and you will be thrown in jail. That's how the law currently works.
On the second point, markets devoid of government regulation do not have omniscient corporations, because what he was saying was regulations distort and in many ways, allow the older players to grow stronger- ie the longer you exist, the more powerful you become.
Say I invent this awesome new laser that cures blindness and go in for a patent. After all these start-up costs and paperwork, I finally go bankrupt. This protects the current companies that make competing products for cataract surgery, etc. But at the end of the day, it's still me that's SOL. Oh, and as an added slap in the face, my invention gets bought out. BTW, this actually happened with a patent of a water-fueled car.
I would not have wanted to live in a Libertarian America in 1941. It would have fought back against Japan, but left Europe at the mercy of Hitler. That's just stupid. If you don't fight evils like genocide, you condone them. No true libertarian, or beleiver in human rights at all, would do that!
Arguing half-truths against someone when you don't even understand their philosophy fully to begin with is stupid. I almost expected you to trot out that same tired "libertarians are isolationists" argument. Actually, many corporate lobbyists helped finance Hitler. You may be interested in looking up Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. for one such example. But at the time, many Americans admired Hitler for what he was doing. (Not just Americans; see quotes from Churchill, Gandhi, as well as FDR).
Again, one can learn how the Federal Reserve works by looking it up on the internet or in library books. It should be obvious that without the money coined and printed by the Federal Reserve, profits would be impossible.
You keep saying anyone can look things up, but that does not mean they will understand it. You have demonstrated this yourself, and in the first point Gene made about people not understanding libertarianism.
Indeed, in America they used to conserve Jim Crow laws. Before that, they conserved slavery. Before that, they tried to conserve servatude to the British monarch. They failed each time, because Liberals beat them.
Once again, I can point you to the wikipedia entry of "classical liberalism" for more on the true philosophy that America was founded on. And it's pretty rude to see someone package incomplete facts in response to something he claims is erroneous himself, while dismissing the original content entirely.
P.S. On the WW2 reference, one could argue it was Japan that acted in self-defense, although such exercise was of greater magnitude than the comparable action of the U.S. cutting off their oil supply. Do your homework.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-29 05:15:38
Hi Gene,
Yup, trying to freeze the meanings of labels applied to particular groups is a waste of time and tends to generate conflict and unrealistic expectations. The meanings of labels, brands and parties are in constant flux due to the forces of political manipulation and and the passing of time.
Better to deal with real actions and consequences than to get all balled up over what to label the people who cause those consequences.
As Hans and Frans might have said, "Listen to me now and label me later."
I will address your issues quickly but Adrian did a great job in his comments.
Many viewpoints are impractical, such as Buddha or Jesus, should they be discounted? Everyone has divergent views, but I think I stuck to the program. For instance, if you are against gay marriage then you have a "conservative view" on gay marriage, which doesn't mean you are a conservative on everything.
Yes, any government action involves the use of force. And, corporations are a function of the State, and I am completely against incorporation. I have a number of articles on that concept.
A Libertarian America may never have been attacked at all.
By your statement, I assume no one made any profit before 1913?
Correct, classical liberalism and libertarianism are very similar. as I mentioned, i was using "modern" interpertations of Liberalism.
Hi Adrian, thanks for the good explanations and points.
Hi Jahfre,
a label is simply a definition and through time definitions change. a definition is what we "agree" to. that's all the article is about. there would be little need for writing in this world if definitions were off limits. i put in my vote that we are hereby all free to write about definitions!
Keep in mind that after we declared war on Japan, that Hitler, due to their alliance, declared war on America. This was considered the back door to war with Germany. Therefore, your assertion that a libertarian America would not have gone to war against Hitler is ultimately false. Also, had America been libertarian, it might not have engaged in attempting to get Japan to attack us, successfully keeping us out of the war as the majority of the people wanted.
Also, keep in mind that in 1941, America didn't know of the genocidal atrocities committed by the Nazis.
Much of what you imagine liberals and conservatives to believe is oversimplified. Of course, both liberal and conservative simpletons exist (five minutes listening to C-SPAN call-ins will demonstrate that), so maybe you've been hearing them. I think a lot of what you argue that conservatives and liberals believe are straw men: easy to set up, easy to push over.
Nevertheless I was pleasantly surprised that this essay was one of the better ones I've read on what Libertarians think. It's also another example of the problem that I've had with Libertarianism in general: the belief that coercive force can only come from the State, and everything will be fine if it is just "fixed" by getting the State of the way.
In the real world, a totally non-coercive government would simply create a power vacuum, into which would rush gangsters, local bosses, mobs, tribal leaders, new politicians, anyone with deep pockets, religious fanatics, nationalist militias, racist hate groups, fascists, and personality cultists of every stripe. Alas, none of those people have the compunctions about coercive power that Libertarians apparently have. Of course, Libertarians would have their guns to defend themselves from this rabble, but by that time, it would be too late.
It seems to me your views are founded on a world view that is fundamentally as blindly utopian as a "liberal's" and as hostile to good governance as a "conservative's." Perhaps you're a centrist after all?
Sorry--I started this response to compliment you on the quality of your writing and thinking. I really do think this essay is quite good. Despite my reservations, it does challenge some of my assumptions, and even got me reading Hayek a bit. But I ran up against my fundamental problem with your thesis, and ended up discussing that instead. In other words, great essay, but I still don't buy the end product.
The "views" were simplified to draw out the "worst" of the political spectrum and create a large contrast.
your views on "force" are spot on and I have written a number of articles about that problem. it exists and government is in fact an institution that is given or takes the "monopoly of force" in order to either keep the negative force under wraps or to be tyrannical.
definately, anarcho Libs don't address this issue other than their own little "agencies". I don't believe we could ever have "peaceful" anarcho liberterianism without a low population, so one could move and excape the force!
most libs back some form of government to keep force in check. of course, therein lies the conundrum!
Thank you for your analysis and I believe your explanation is spot on (at least from my understanding of all positions). I have a question on when Libertarians believe war is necessary? For example, my understanding is that libertarians would never support a war unless attacked. The question I've always wondered is what about situations such as genocide... Would libertarians support war with Germany in WW2 knowing about the genocide of the Jews? (If they knew of the genocide) Or would they sit on the side lines not interfering, until directly attacked?
The standard Lib position on War is non=agression but allows for self defense. Of course, every Libertarian is different.
My interpertation is defense of attack only. and, as far as nations go, i think the defense needs to be contained within your borders. In other words, you are truly defending your nation.
The hitler question of course, is difficult. But, I think both Europe and the United States did many things that helped hitler get into power and cornered the German people and created conditions for the second war. This is asolutely no excuse for the war or genocide, but policies can be warlike, even if no shots are fired.
I tend toward pacifism myself. To me, all War is genocide of one form or another.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
