Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.There are various forms of libertarianism including left-Libertarianism but my interest is on right-libertarianism Like anarchism of the left it eschews government interference in people's lives but unlike anarchism it only sees power as expressed through the instruments of the state and formally its government as being the threat to liberty. Libertarianism says nothing about other structures of power, both formal and informal. For libertarians power is strictly a legal instrument of state. Libertarians prize the individual and his choices above all else. They believe all individuals should be free to act in their own interests. Further they believe individuals ONLY act rationally. They value the free market and property rights.
Although libertarianism is a right wing movement it differs from other right wing movements in several aspects. Libertarians believe in religious liberty and in a strong wall between church and state. They support many progressive causes like gay marriage and decriminalising prostitution and drug use. They differ from the religious right who see the problems of the world through a lens of scriptural morality. The religious right are also against homosexuality in principle and are in favour of the "war on drugs" and favour punitive "crime and punishment" policies. Libertarians are also strong in their support of free speech. In these differences libertarians share much with some left wing movements. On the other hand many other left wing movements share much with the religious right but that is a whole other blog post.
If communism has a founding father in Karl Marx then libertarianism has a founding father in the form of Ayn Rand. The emphasis on free enterprise and property rights is strong. Her particular form was known as objectivism.
It is the pro business pro property rights anti government type of libertarianism I will talk about. Is it possible to get an optimum society by down sizing government or getting rid of government altogether? Are there similarities between libertarianism and other "ISMs"? Does it suffer from the same shortcomings?
Like all political theories libertarianism suffers from a poor understanding of human behaviour to the extent that it is biologically driven. That necessarily follows for ideologies as they understate or deny any role for evolutionary psychology in explaining human behaviour. Anarchism is a philosophy which appeals to me. I resonate with the thoughts of Lao Tsu. At the same time I can not see how it can really work in practice from a perspective of evolutionary psychology. Human beings are animals and this fact informs our behaviour. In no primate society do we see an absence of hierarchy. I believe the reason we have government is not because some people got together and decided to lord it over everyone else although that may have happened but because governance is biologically emergent in homo sapiens.
Right wing libertarians are interesting in that they are blind to private forms of tyranny. They are fixated only on formal state power to coerce and miss more subtle forms. Most of all they are blind to machinations of non coerced behaviour which work automatically towards hierarchy and governance including the coercion of others. A paradox of libertarianism is that one is free to pursue one's advantage in furthering one's interests but that this is at the expense of someone else's agency. Libertarianism only works in complete equality but to keep it equal requires coercion and therefore that is the end of said liberty. If no such coercion occurs then the libertarian utopia soon dissipates into thin air. Governance fills a vacuum just like air.
Let's have a look at a real country without a recognisable government. That country is Somalia. A country which more resembles anarchy in the negative sense of the word than in the ideal sense. But I said recognisable. There is not anything we would call a government in the formal but there is governance. That is the war lords. They are effectively running the country. They need to be war lords to protect their interests and those of their allies and the people under their charge. Why would anyone want to be under the charge of a war lord? Would you like to sail solo in Somalia with all those dangerous war lords all over the place? Probably not. So what to do? Live under the protection of one such war lord or consolidate your power and become a war lord yourself. You can see the makings of a feudal system. In fact Europe in the dark ages was exactly like this. The lords, earls, dukes, kings and emperors were all just war lords. The titles they gave themselves latter. The lords arranged themselves into a hierarchy depending on what was expedient for each and what was his relative strength. Out of chaos comes order driven by human biology which is inherited from primate ancestors.
We can predict what would happen in Somalia if left to its own. However the likelihood is that the rest of the world will not leave Somalia alone. So in a thought experiment in which Somalia remains isolated war lords would continue to wage war. Some will defeat others. Armies of the "protected" will wage war on armies of other "protected" men. Other war lords may form alliances to gain advantage and to protect common interests from common enemies. Some war lords may offer their loyalty to stronger war lords rather then face annihilation at the hands of superior forces and elect to become a "sub lords". Eventually one or more kings or emperors would emerge to rule Somalia in one or more states.
All of this looks like naked animal behaviour, the outcome of a brutal, bloody power struggle of dominance and submission. It doesn't look very noble. It is not how we like to view ourselves, as being "above the animals". Enter the need for ennoblement. Why would serfs want to put their necks on the line for someone else's egotistical glory? Serfs drafted into battle need to feel the cause is their cause about values they care about. It just all looks too ghastly otherwise. A war lord recently titled a new king or emperor needs to buy himself a priest, monk, pope, church, temple, holy book. They need to be made legitimate and holy, that they are ordained to rule by heaven and have a divine right to rule. This is added to by ceremony, symbols, founding myths and impressive structures to meld group identity and loyalty. The need to cohere to others like ourselves and to differentiate form others not like ourselves is biological. In the modern world that manifests in good and ugly ways. With what and with whom we identify with is culturally moulded but biologically energised. On the African savannah this on average served to favour like genes. In the modern world the same instinct can work in ways not related to our genes or only loosely related but it is energised from the same place. Thus the new state emerges with its new rulers mandated by heaven and both are valued as worth fighting for. The pirates of Somalia become revenue raisers with a holy purpose and maybe even a magnificent uniform.
Modern forms of ennoblement take a secular form rather then a religious form but they arise for the same reason and are reified in the same way. Energised biology.
If we take modern libertarians of the right and grant their society as a given what happens? I will imagine this is the United States. There is no government. that means no regulations, no bureaucracies, no taxes and no jurisprudence. No crimes and nothing no one is not allowed to do. To protect one's interest one uses his gun. In the lead up to this magnificent utopia all government services were privatised. Roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and policing is all maintained for profit. Use the street and you pay. At least one doesn't have to pay tax to maintain the roads and it's your choice if you want to use what is now private space to do all the things you need to do to stay alive but at least you're free from tyranny. No one is forcing you to pay the street owner/protector/troll. There is no public health system. No more taxes for that. It's your choice if you want to stay well and pay a substantial part of your salary to a health insurance company. If you can't pay that poverty is also your choice and if you don't like it start your own health system and undercut the opposition. Otherwise pay up or die. At least you are free from the tyranny of an oppressive government. You can imagine that law and order would be a big problem. You are probably going to need the protection of a unit bigger than yourself. It could be a collective to which you pay a fee but you don't have to. You can be a victim of crime instead. You are free to choose. If you can't afford the fee for "protection" then start your own protective service. Apart from a collective you could instead engage a corporate security firm and pay them protection money. If the security firm is big and powerful enough they could do things to "persuade" you to buy their protection. Such a proactive approach will be good for the bottom line. All these security firms may need even bigger security outfits resembling the military to keep them in line. More fees of course. At least you are free and you are not subject to any tyranny from government.
With the government out of eduction everyone can have equal opportunity for education. All you need is money. There may be unequal outcomes but all you need to equal access initially and we will all have lots of opportunities. Maybe for the first generation but the second generation will have unequal opportunity in school because money buys better education. At least you will not have to pay taxes for education and if you can't afford education then that's your choice. Each subsequent generation will have increasing inequality of opportunity further enlarging inequality of outcomes. This will increase the need for policing. Your safety is your choice. Pay up. At least no one is forcing you.
The above looks a like the Somalian anarchic utopia. From the chaos described above a new form of governance would start to emerge.The USA differs from Somalia in being a far richer country. Overwhelmingly the resources or wealth are in the hands of corporation and a tiny elite of their owners. This will shape the form of government that emerges. There is another country which represents the ultimate in privatisation. That country is Saudi Arabia. An entire privately owned country. A country owned by one family. What democracy? Since when do you have a democracy of what is private property.
So Saudi Arabia is the model of what a totally privatised United States would look like. This is the end point of the libertarian paradise. So why does it fail? As stated above as with any ideologies it fails to understand human behaviour at the basic biological level. Further right wing libertarianism resembles other ideologies in ascribing everything negative as being the result of one enemy.
- For Christians the enemy is Satan or any of his minions on earth. If we just get rid of Satan then everything will be perfect.
- For Marxists the enemy is the bourgeoisie. If we just get rid of the bourgeoisie then everything will be perfect.
- For Nazis the enemy is the Jew. If we just get rid of the Jews then everything will be perfect.
- For feminists the enemy is the patriarchy. If we just get rid of the patriarchy then everything will be perfect.
- Finally for libertarians the enemy is government. If we just get rid of the government then everything will be perfect.
