Friday, June 14, 2013

Why Hasn't Libertarianism Won the Day?

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Nice reply by Tom Woods to some editorials written by people who oppose libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief in societal design grounded in voluntary cooperation among individuals. Grounded in the philosophy of natural law, libertarianism posits that people are born with the right to pursue their interests as long as they don't forcefully interfere in the pursuits of others.

Libertarians oppose forceful aggression (a.k.a. the non-aggression principle). The only legitimate use of force is for self-defense. Viewed through the libertarian lens, the proper role of government is to help people defend their property (broadly construed to include life and liberty as well as material possessions) against aggression.

A question posed by one of the editorialists was this:  If libertarianism is such a great framework, then why hasn't a country adopted it?

Before getting to Tom's response, I must first note that highly libertarian designs have been adopted at one time or another throughout history. Ancient Greece and Rome, for example, had runs that reflected may libertarian principles. Though not perfect, the system of government instituted by the United States, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Constitution, has been the boldest libertarian design in scale and scope enacted in the history of man.

The more accurate and interesting question to pose is this: Why has it been difficult for libertarian designs to persist?

Tom's response, which he frames as a series of rephrased questions, is based in large part on the axiom that people prefer leisure over work, and less work over more work. Stated differently, people want to get the most gain from the least amount of effort.

If people can advance their interests on the backs of others, then they are prone to do so. Because government is legalized force, then it is in the interest of some to use the strong arm of government to advance their interests at others' expense.

The history of the world can be seen as a battle of voluntary cooperation vs involuntary servitude. Peace vs aggression. Freedom vs force.

The libertarian design has been battling designs that employ aggression. Thus far, aggressive designs have had the upper hand. This obviously does not render the libertarian approach meaningless. It merely reflects the strength of human desire to force one's will onto others for personal gain.

5 comments:

dgeorge12358 said...

The foundation of any and every civilization, including our own, is private ownership of the means of production. Whoever wishes to criticize modern civilization, therefore, begins with private property.
~Ludwig von Mises

katie ford hall said...

I think that's a pretty cynical POV. To me, this is why it hasn't won the day - the arrogance and selfish nature of it all. At least that's how it sounds to my ear.

There are plenty of us in the "47%" who are neither lazy nor dependent but believe in working for the common good. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Of course, but not just disenfranchised individuals. The wealthy take advantage of their influence to stack the system in their favor. And, really, who does more damage to the whole? An isolated woman who abuses her food stamps or a greedy corporatist on wall street?

But I only hear libertarians blame people who don't have the political capital to fight back. The movement comes across as very elitist. Either libertarians have a fundamental misunderstanding of people who don't buy into this theory or there's a serious PR problem.

But saying that libertarians haven't won the day because people are lazy? Ick.

katie ford hall said...

Much more succinctly said by Jon Stewart:

"Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break you're a smart businessman, but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a moocher?"

fordmw said...

That interest groups of any sort (rich or poor) can employ 'political capital' to get their way demonstrates the pt. People prefer to use the strong arm of govt to act aggressively on others rather than to engage in voluntary cooperation.

fordmw said...

The straightforward answer to the JS question is that pursuing a tax break is peacefully acting to keep your property while accepting govt welfare payments is aggressively acting to take the property of others.