Understanding the variety within the Libertarian worldview can help bridge differences. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Libertarians often find themselves at odds with each other and are usually left wondering why. If we are all Libertarians, we can't we agree. The answer lies in the fact that Libertarianism itself includes an incredibly diverse collection of political viewpoints and world views. Being aware of this wide spectrum of viewpoints helps us come to agreement rather than arguing endlessly.
To me, the defining constraint of the Libertarian argument is the belief that aggressive force used against other humans is wrong. Secondary to that is the view that all individuals should be allowed to do as they please in this life as long as they refrain from aggressive force and their choice of actions does not restrict that same freedom of others.
This, of course, is where Libertarians differ from mainstream political views, those of modern liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives believe that the use of force is necessary to accomplish their goals. Others must be reeled in and force, through either actual physical force or the threat of it, to fall in line with either the liberal or conservative mandates on how one should live one's life. And not surprisingly, contrary to what they would have you believe, their ideas about how the world should be are not that far from each other.
To understand Libertarianism better, it is convenient to describe their differences in terms of a Left and a Right. In fact, the only political spectrum in which a left and right actual exist is the Libertarian. Left and right do not exist among liberals and conservatives. Both are extreme Stateists.
The extreme left of Libertarianism consists of the absolute removal of any constraints to freedom. Humans are free to do as they please and what will be, will be. To be Libertarian, the extreme left must still hold to the belief that aggressive force is wrong, but they might concede that others will not agree and take actions that are detrimental to peaceful coexistence. But they would also hold to the belief that nothing humans have ever done and no institution humans have created has ever been successful in treating this problem without creating greater problems, so it makes no sense to head in that direction. To the leftist Lib, you are all free to go and do as you please!
Now, defining the extreme right is more difficult. To define the right lib, we must draw the line where libertarianism stops and liberal/conservative thought starts. The end of right libertarianism exists at the point where the state is allowed the power to anything that is outside the framework of protecting its citizens from aggressive force from those among the population or those outside of the population. Beyond this lies the land of liberals and conservatives.
Defining what that would entail of course is endless. So, the right side is harder to pin down, but not impossible if you keep in mind the concept of aggressive force and eliminate aspects of a worldview that are more subjective.
Property and land is always a fundamental issue and right and left Libs usually have differing views. But again, to be considered Libertarian, they must hold in common the belief that aggressive force is wrong and this can be applied to both sides when land is taken into consideration.
Left Libs hold every viewpoint of private property imaginable, from status quo private property to complete common ownership. But what makes them Libs is the belief that whatever one holds as the "ideal" form of land use, one must never infringe on another's right to their own form of property. All interaction concerning land should be consensual and without force.
Right Libs on the other hand, hold that the State should be used to create and enforce the status quo system of private property. The two fundamental and monumental differences between what is reality in private property at this time and the right Lib idea of how things should actually be is the tenet that no land should ever be made private by force or fraud and no other person should be forced to pay to protect one's property.
This last point is very important is separating right Libs from liberal/conservatives. The socialization of property protection costs is the primary factor in the formation of class structure within society. When we are all made to pay through taxes or other methods to protect the land of others rather than the cost being assessed to the property itself, we are being forced to fund advantage. The right Lib believes firmly in the right to own as much property as one can afford, but doesn't believe others should pay you for that right.
There are of course many other issues and further discussion is warranted. But the overriding factor is definitely the elimination of aggressive force in our culture. It is something all Libertarians agree on, even if they disagree on how to get there.
So next time you are arguing with your fellow Lib and wondering why two people who supposedly have the same worldview don't have the same worldview, remember that you are both are trying to get to the same place.
Or maybe you aren't!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
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.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: June 7, 2010 02:30:01 PM
My view is that your statement "their choice of actions does not restrict that same freedom of others" must be expanded to include "does not impose costs on others." Think about it.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: June 7, 2010 06:32:57 PM
Hi Gene,
I apprecite your take on the libertarian left/right schism. Fortunately I seldom see a need to get libertarians to agree on anything. Endless debate is their forte and I tend to leave them to it. The main thing most libertarians have in common from my perspective is a dogged pursuit of freedom from the consequences of liberty.
Only in the rarefied and intellectually incestuous world of pure academia can such nonsense be promoted as a viable reality. This stems from an absolute misunderstanding of the notion of human action. In the real world there are only a few constants; libertarianism is an attempt at assuming those constants do not exist. The first and most fundamental fact is that human actions have consequences. The second fact is that human action, by which I specifically mean free will and the liberty to exercise it, can only suppressed through direct and continuous force or threat of force to apply direct physical restraint.
In the real world there is no silly "non violence" constraint on liberty. There is no such thing as "freedom from" consequences you dislike. No one can presume to reset the world so as to undo all potential consequences of past human actions. Surely some libertarians can see that. Imagine a chess player who decided they would only play if they got to arrange all the pieces so their movement could have no possible consequences on each other. Who could possibly take them seiously? Certainly not I...as you well know.
In the end, once the real world is reintroduced to the mix, libertarianism, more specifically, the "freedom from" branch of libertarianism, is simply another ism. Which is to say that libertarianism is a fear-motivated, faith-based belief system in which followers revere the ridiculous notion of freedom from consequences. When a culture mistakes a faith-based belief system for a system of government you get thought police and pervasive social oppression. A police state is the only way to enforce a faith-based belief as a system of government. It matters little to those of us who advocate and defend liberty of the "freedom to" bent just who is running the thought police; progressives, conservatives, greens or libertarians all have only the same choice when faced with dissent, oppression. Isms can only exist in a vacuum so any non-ismatic behavior must be focibly extinguished before the full glory of the mono-thought society can be realized.
The one characteristic that distinguishes libertarianism from most other isms is that it seems to attract individuals who pride themselves on their logic and reason....to me that is akin to fashion designers flocking to admire the emperors new clothes...ironic to the Nth degree...an endlessly amusing, for me.
Pursuit of freedom from the consequences is the very reason that governments form. From my perspective libertarians is full of internal contradictions and ridiculous faith in the impossible. Thanks to the deliberate self-marginalization that is the hallmark of the libertarianism flock...none of those contradictions or the debate over them has any relevance in the real world of politics and economics.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
To me, all politics fall into the "faith based" category. I see little difference between the existence of the "state" today as I do of the "church" of yesteryears. Except that the guns and required "tithes" are bigger.
