On Libertarians
I must confess, up front, that I come to this subject with a bias; I am heartily tired of hearing various people claim to be “Libertarians”. Such exclamations of political belief are about as meaningful as stating one “believes” in the democratic process while voting to overturn the results of a fair, open and duly certified election. Don’t misunderstand me, the “Libertarian” concept posits a noble ideal and I am all for individual “free will”. But, it espouses several precepts that require “real world” actions on the part of adherents before they can make a creditable claim to be a practitioner of that political philosophy. It may be elementary, but let me start with some brief dictionary definitions to help clarify terms.
lib•er•ta•ri•an (n.) 1. advocate of individual responsibility | somebody who believes in the doctrine of free will 2. advocate of individual freedom | somebody who believes in the principle that people should have complete freedom of thought and action
Derived from the same Latin root as:
lib•er•ty (n.) [ fr. L libertat-, libertes, fr. liber free — more at LIBERAL] 1: the quality or state of being free, a. the power to do as one pleases…
And:
lib•er•al (n.) [ fr. L liberalis suitable for a freeman, fr. liber free ] 1a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth 2a: marked by generosity and openhandedness : bountiful …5 : broad-minded, tolerant; esp.: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms…
News stories, when describing the Koch brothers, for instance, invariably refer to them as “libertarians”; which is how they repeatedly described themselves. My trouble with those calling themselves a “Libertarian”: they either don’t understand what the word has meant for the last several centuries or they know and are using it duplicitously, because they don’t want to be labeled “conservative”, which is what their political actions describe. Many claiming to be “liberty-loving libertarians” are in reality, merely conservatives in wolves clothing. Or, more accurately in modern America, supporters of the Republican party. Rarely are those calling themselves “libertarians” very “liberal-minded”, when as noted above, the word derives from the same Latin root and core definition as the churlish labels conservative’s hurl as vitriol at opponents; namely, “liberal” and “liberalism”.
And apparently, the overwhelming majority of today’s so-called “liberals” have also forgotten that relationship to be true. Again, the basic definition for “libertarian” is: somebody who believes in the principle that people should have complete freedom of thought and action. Free Will For All. A radically “liberal” concept first given voice in the Enlightenment and still considered radical to this day. It is a romantic notion, that every member of society should be unhindered by state laws and regulations. Every citizen completely free to work and act and play as they choose, as long as their behavior does not infringe on other “free men”. But, there is one troublesome trait inherent in pure libertarianism; if carried to its logical extension, practicing the philosophy would surely lead to a state of anarchy. A concept that many find frightening and unacceptable for a civilized society.
Over time, the theoretical employment of “Libertarianism” has been interpreted from several diverging viewpoints, dependent on the motives of the advocate. One viewpoint comes from what I’ll call:
“The Utopian-Libertarian”.
“The Utopian-Libertarian” sees totally free, upright, self-sufficient individuals living in conditional peace with their fellow men in a tolerant, open society. A nation that would not be dismayed by couples formed of two men or two women or a man and woman. Or three men and two women and so on. It would not be any of their concern how others in the society choose to live, as long as they could live the lifestyle they chose without recrimination or restriction. Whether the agreed with such lifestyles or not, they would not ostracize sexually active adult men and women who never marry. Or, men and women who mate for life out of love; some marry some don’t. Sexually active single-women whose standing in the community is not lessened by their sexuality. Men with many wives and wives with many husbands. Communes formed of like-minded social libertarians. As well as, independent misanthropes who keep to themselves, avoid social involvements and let others do the same. The libertarian with dreams of “a more perfect union” would embrace an economic system where bartering for goods and services organically replaced government issued money, banks, credit cards and so on. The “Utopian” sees a world of farmers, philosophers, mechanics and poets. Merchants, musicians, plumbers, artists and tinkerers, inventing and writing and playing what they will. No laws to stifle the finest in human nature. A community of interdependent entrepreneurs, tradesmen and manufacturers; ruled only by the free market and a free exchange between a free people.
A second interpretation comes from what I’ll arbitrarily call:
“The Cynical-Libertarian”.
Unlike the “Utopian”, “The Cynical-Libertarian” envisions a “libertarian” society operating as the “Wild West”. A Neolithic world of big dogs swallowing up the small dogs to gain ascendance, Every man of substance wears a Colt revolver, holstered at the waist, drives a fine new automobile and there’s a caveat for every emptor. A harsh, but fair, hard-scrabble civilization were the strongest rule because everyone is free to think and act as they so desire, and they desire to get their way above all else, and own all material possession they can acquire. “Blessed are the strong for they shall take what they desire. Detested are the meek, for they shall toil for the scraps off the strongman’s table.” A world of conquerors and the conquered, comely wenches serving flagons of mead, kings, king-makers and their retinues, flim-flam artists, bookkeepers and mercenaries. Viking society. The Rule of Gold replaces the Golden Rule. No laws to curb the best or worst in human nature.
The “Cynic” dreams that this world of unregulated freedom would allow them to pursue a path to acquiring wealth and resources and property, because they are more clever and more ambitious than the great majority of their fellows. They don’t mind the freedom of others for that can be advantageous to their goals. Free men don’t form unions. Free men are loathe to band together to challenge the actions of other free men. Competition will weed out the weaklings and the “Cynics” believe, on a level playing field, they will come out on top. Who will restrain them from taking natural resources from the land and selling them for profit? Who will force them to voluntarily provide safe workplaces? Who will monitor the industrial waste from their operations and prosecute them for polluting the groundwater, atmosphere, lakes and rivers and oceans? An unregulated society of unregulated citizens is the perfect arrangement for capital to generate unregulated profits without governmental interference. Any good works would be done at the discretion of individuals. No clique of “self-righteous, do-gooders” in Washington D.C., would think they had the right to make wealthy individuals give a portion of that wealth to fund meals for poor children or give unwed mothers cash for having more babies. Let those too lazy to work, starve or find a job.
I could go on, but I think that even my brief, contrived narrative begins to reveal some of the tension inherent in the admirable Libertarian belief in a society where “people should have complete freedom of thought and action”. As James Madison put it:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” — James Madison
Would a libertarian economic and political structure bring out the best in its citizens or the worst? Would a society comprised completely of free men and women, with complete freedom to think and act as they please, beget a compassionate, cooperating society that took care of those with physical or mental disabilities? Those who are injured at work? Those who are injured financially, physically or mentally through no fault of their own? Would such a political structure have enough power to make improvements that “…promote the general welfare” and “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”?
Or, given our base human nature and the example of America’s current political polarization, does it seem more likely we would end up with a society where avarice was the primary behavior, personal gain the ultimate motive and the “common good” was easily disregarded? A nation where everyman is out to take care of himself, get the most from the system as he can, with little or no regard for the environment, the next generation or well-being of our fellow citizens? This question of potential outcomes and the merits to be gained from pursuing “libertarian” ideas of society and government, brings me back to my opening concerns. I believe many of those who claim to be “libertarians” are either fooling themselves, have poorly considered what “libertarianism” actually would look like or they are merely deploying the label as a way to achieve their un-libertarian goals. Let me discuss why that must be so.
GOVERNMENT ISN’T THE SOLUTION…
We often hear the mantra from those purporting to be “Libertarians”, that America’s government is “out of control.” Or, we need “limited government”. Or “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.” Or, “there’s too much government overreach.” Or, “our goal is to starve government until it’s so small we can drown it in a bathtub.” Or, “the government that governs best, governs least.” This idea, that the United States Government has grown too large for its own good is not, strictly speaking, a Libertarian idea It has been flung around by conservative politicians and the Republican party since the turn of the 20th Century.
Pseudo-Libertarians, such as the Koch Brothers and their numerous subsidiaries, think-tanks, foundations and ancillary PACS, as well as other like-minded billionaire political funders only want to limit government in certain departments and agencies that work to monitor and regulate the harm they cause to the general welfare. These “libertarians” have no problem when politicians they buy allocate our tax dollars on defense spending, agricultural and energy related tax subsidies, rewrite tax codes so they pay less in Federal taxes, but no alternative source of revenue is tapped to replace that lose of government income. That’s not limiting government, that’s just making government borrow more to cover the shortfall and be forced to pay out more in interest on the borrowed debt. No military, intelligence or law enforcement programs were cut to pay for the huge tax revenue losses. It was just added on to the burden average families must pay. That’s not “all men are free to act and think as they please”. The only “wills” being “freed” are the ones making the huge campaign donations.
What’s even more puzzling, are the types of political organizations and cultural causes the wealthy “Libertarians” choose to fund with hundreds of millions of dollars from their personal stash each year. “Dark money” donations paid for the groups that railroaded the current cohort of regressive Supreme Court Judges onto the bench, while their mean-spirited orange haired proxy occupied the White House. These justices have already started on their quest to take America back to some past that only existed in pseudo-historical fairy tales. Why would supposed “libertarians” fund a bunch of judges that are determined to eliminate individual liberties, like abortion, voting rights, sexual orientation, freedom from religion, etc., if those “libertarians” truly wanted less government “overreach”?
THE “TRUE” LIBERTARIAN…
A “true Libertarian” would be opposed to any laws that give a government the authority to regulate what a person can or cannot buy or sell on the free market. No laws would be tolerated that prohibited what citizens produced, purchased or put into their bodies. Any drug. Any plant. Any man-made composition. Any thing. A people dedicated to true individual “liberty”, would wage no “war on drugs”. Because they deeply believe in the individual’s freedom, they would accept no laws that prohibited any citizen from buying or selling animals, real estate, stocks, food or drugs, alcohol, weapons; anything the market demanded or supplied would be legal, as long as it did not negatively effect another’s “free will”.
No one, true to the “Libertarian” ideal, would ever approve of mandatory “seat-belt”, “child-safety” and driver licensing laws. Government doesn’t have the right to mandate that “free” people have to buy private insurance, before they can drive a vehicle they own on the public roadways. No mealy-mouthed public official is going to decide how fast or slow “free people” must drive their vehicle. But then, since a core tenet of “libertarianism” is to have the least government possible, the “libertarian” society would not allow any central authority to tax their transportation, so, there would be far less money for building roads and far fewer highways to travel than we have today. All roads, highways, bridges, etc., used for motor vehicle traffic would only be funded by tolls on each individual user, on each separate stretch of road, according to the wear and tear due to the size and weight of their vehicle.
An Interstate system of highways, designed, engineered, maintained and administered by a central authority would not exist in a totally “libertarian” economy. Such a system would require a powerful federal agency to organize and administer. But government must be limited. The funds necessary to build such a system could not be taken in the form of taxes from individual citizens, because such taxes would be prohibited as an infringement on the “liberty” of a “free” people. That would be government “over-reaching” right into a man’s wallet and extracting his hard earned dough. And, since in a nation of 350,000,000 people, such an interconnected transportation network would require too large a government to manage it; no such comprehensive highway system would ever be built.
The “true libertarian” opposes any government requiring all citizens to pay a tax on the money they individually earn. With every citizen operating as a “free agent”, relying on his personal initiative and natural ability to succeed in the open market, the wealth he gains is his to spend or save, as he sees fit. Just as any losses he suffers are his to endure without assistance from the rest of society. Any government is too much government for a “true libertarian”. The phrases “limited government” and “government overreach” and “overregulation” are quite trendy and often repeated, among professed “libertarians”, these days. But all the elected officials the deep pocketed “faux-libertarians” buy, don’t reduce government, they only reduce revenue and increase debt.
Wouldn’t a person who believes the individual should have the liberty to follow his “free will”, rebel against a powerful, state-run police force, paid with his tax dollars, that was used to restrict citizens from assembling to protest against their government and that same police force’s abuses of power? If every citizen was free to operate according to their own free will, was responsible for his own well-being and relied on no authority to make decisions regarding his individual actions, why would a police force be needed at all? Why, then, do those wealthy individuals who claim they want a libertarian society spend so much of their wealth advocating for ever expanding law enforcement and national defense spending?
A “true Libertarian” would believe it was the individual mother’s right to make decisions about her body and health and no one else’s right to intervene in that mother’s actions. They would never tolerate laws that banned abortion. They would rail against any laws regulating human sexuality. Any laws that prohibit same-sex marriages, sodomy laws, laws that made marriage between different races illegal. Building codes and zoning ordinances? Not in a society based on free-will. A man should be able to do what he pleases with his property. A person who believes people should have complete free-will, could never logically justify using his taxes to raise an army that invades a foreign country. By extension, logic shows; a truly libertarian society could not long survive in this world because its members would never agree to maintain an army to defend themselves from aggression, and would therefore be unable to resist invasions by foreign nations.
In fact, true Libertarianism, allowed to run its course, is virtually a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. In its ultimate manifestation, there could be no organized government over a civilization of individuals with complete liberty of will. None would presume to make rules prescribing regulations upon others whose free-will was sacrosanct. So there would be no laws. No criminal punishments. No prisons, no courts, no judges. There could be no means of universal taxation, no way to compel compliance. Therefore, no state maintained roads and bridges, no prisons, no standing armies, no treaties military or trade or otherwise, no foreign ambassadors, no patent protections, no police, no courts and so on. Ultimate Libertarianism is a concept unattainable as a societal form, because its main premise is contrary to the organizing principles necessary to govern. It could be maintained that this form of society was tried and abandoned by humankind in its communities of the stone age and earlier periods.
Therefore, those claiming to be “libertarians”, are merely wrapping themselves in a noble sounding label. As with many political/philosophical labels though, there are very few who follow the core principle the label describes, to its logical extreme. As referenced above; the Koch Brothers made a lifelong campaign of professing to be “libertarians”. Yet, the millions of dollars they spend to support politicians, all goes to politicians who epitomize “big government” largesse. These supposedly “conservative” office holders have never reduced government spending on the military (which equals defense contractors) or agriculture (which equals ag/chemical manufacturers) or commerce (which means tax cuts & anti-labor laws) or energy subsidies (which kicks back to their donors in the oil & gas industry; like the Koch Bros.).
As “true libertarians”, billionaires like the Kochs, said they would not make political donations to any candidates that expanded any government programs. Only “Liberals” think government can solve problems by spending tax dollars. Libertarians would only support those who work to dismantle government and reduce spending of tax dollars. It was Koch funded politicians who added a brand new cabinet level department to the Executive branch, Homeland Security. Those same libertarian-backed officials enacted an expansive, costly entitlement program, without also providing any mechanism to pay for it, when they added Medicare Part D. Oh, but allocating subsidies to oil and energy companies is for the national defense and is a proper tax expenditure. Yes, and expanding law enforcement personnel and policing powers, and donating military equipment to local police keeps protestors from delaying oil pipeline construction. And, by the way, increasing military spending helps insure foreign assets of major corporations are protected, reducing “free will” investor anxiety. So that’s good “big government”. Only those tax and spend, “liberal” Democrats are evil people who want to take your guns.
LIBERTY
There is a continual noise about “liberty”, issuing from both conservative and liberal mouths to the effect; we are blessed to live in a “Free Society”, “America is the Land of the Free”, “Our Flag stands for Freedom and Liberty and Individual Rights.” But it’s just not true. All such talk has become stale political rhetoric, doublespeak and convenient clichés. It’s all so much steaming horse dung, in clusters along our roadways. There is little true freedom in America, or anywhere in the modern world. Maybe it has always been this way. At best, our modern conception of “liberty” is a distorted reflection of true Libertarian free-will. We all want to believe America is a “free country”, but most approve of laws that punish human activities they don’t like, whether those activities are harmful to others or not, and can barely tolerate people with which they don’t agree.
If you, like nearly 80% of Americans, live in an urban area: you are not free to run naked through the streets of your town. You are not free to burn piles of used rubber tires in your backyard. You are not free to play your electric guitar at full volume in your front yard. You are not free to raise hogs on your property. You must obtain a permit from the local government to make an addition to your home. A permit that requires you to meet specific, government imposed construction criteria and pay to do so. You are required to allow government officials to enter your property and inspect the work you are doing and reject that work, if they see fit.
You have no choice, but must buy natural gas and electricity from one local, government approved provider. You can only hook up your plumbing to government provided sewer and water systems. You have only one choice of cable TV provider. You must pay the property taxes mandated by city/county assessors. You can not purchase any merchandise without automatically paying sales tax to the government. If you want to operate a business, you must buy a license from the government each year. To perform plumbing or electrical work for others, you must pass an exam and be licensed by the government. A government license is required if you want to: practice law or medicine, be an architect or engineer, operate a bank or casino or tavern or restaurant or grocery store or sell farm equipment or flowers or clothing or hardware or just about anything else. (except, of course, black market pharmaceuticals and guns)
Americans are free to pursue whatever they desire. As long as they first check with some government bureaucracy for approval. And, pay the required fee.
FREEDOM Exhibit #1:
Upon reaching a certain age in life, an age designated by State law, and after passing a State created exam testing your knowledge of other State laws governing motor vehicles, an exam for which the State charges you a fee; your name, address, social security number (a whole other topic) and photograph are made public record, and you may be granted a conditional driver’s license to drive on the public highways your taxes partially fund, but only so long as you behave properly and obey State-mandated traffic laws. But, you may only travel in a vehicle that has passed a State mandated mechanical inspection, which you must pay to have performed, at which point; the State may then issue a license plate, which you must pay another fee to possess, and which the State requires you to display in a specific location on the vehicle. But, that plate can only be issued if you first prove to the State that you have paid all property taxes accessed by your Local government, which, by-the-way, has nothing at all to do with driving the vehicle or obeying traffic rules; but is a convenient mechanism for the State to help counties collect property taxes.
But wait, before you use your State regulated driver’s license to “free-as-the-wind”, drive your State-inspected, State-licensed vehicle onto the tax-funded, public roadways, you must first provide proof that you have purchased indemnity from some investor-owned, for-profit insurance company which makes money by gambling on the odds of motor vehicle accidents and injuries. The State mandates you purchase this liability insurance to make sure you can pay for any damages you may cause to others, while driving your vehicle. and lastly, before you finally start to “freely” motor out onto the thoroughfare which your taxes pay to build and maintain, you must have your seat belt engaged.
Once on the road you are only permitted to travel “freely” at the speeds posted along the byways, no matter your driving abilities or the condition of the roadway; and those limits not being set by yourself or voted on by your friends or the general public, but arbitrarily designated by some office of the State. And, even though traveling “freely”, you must know and obey all driving laws and any other official signage or traffic-control devices, and, should any law enforcement officers, who constantly monitor you while “freely” traveling in this “free” land, detect that you are moving at a velocity greater than the speed limiting signs specify, or that you did not fully obey the traffic sign, rule or signal, or you do not have your seat belt fastened, or you do have a tail-light burned out, then; your “freedom” of movement will be immediately and forcibly curtailed, you will be chased down and compelled to pull off the byway and legally obligated to contritely present to the officer, at his demand; your State issued photo-ID card and proof you bought insurance from some recognized surety corporation, at which time you will either; be chastised by the officer and allowed to proceed “freely”, or, issued a citation by the officer to “freely” appear in court on a specified date and time and pay a fine, or, your sorry ass may be hauled right to the slammer without proceeding further.
The law enforcement official is granted “freedom” to use his better judgment when deciding which of the outcomes you will receive, but the freedom-loving peoples of this land of liberty are given no discretion in the endeavor, whatsoever. Now that’s what I call “freedom”
conclusion :
So, it is arguably true that we have too much government interfering in our personal affairs. And, nobody likes to pay taxes or be told how to act by others. But, could a nation actually function as a “true libertarian” society, allowing complete freedom of will to all its citizens? If those claiming to be “libertarians” were compelled to describe what that means, I believe they would be hard pressed to give a coherent answer that didn’t include many of the same government restrictions on individual “free will” that already exist. But, I could be mistaken.