Are most Libertarians really Libertarian?

Reply

JB Say Posted: Sat, Jun 18 2011 10:17 PM

rated by 0 users

In my debates either online or in person I met many people who claim to be libertarian but who would support a cause that is not compatible with Libertarianism.

For example someone would say they are a libertarian but then support the dispossession of a group of people by another group of people with whom he/she has an emotional connection.

Someone would say they support free speech but then support prosecuting people who deny a historical fact he/she is emotionally attached to.

A libertarian may oppose foreign aid in general but support foreign aid for a particular country.

Etc.

So the question I have is “what is really to be a libertarian?”

Is it enough to believe in libertarian principles but not necessarily to act according to those principles? Or one has to live and practice libertarian principles to be really considered a libertarian?

Reply

Eric080 replied on Sat, Jun 18 2011 11:55 PM

rated by 0 users

Is this a subtle reference to another thread?

Saying you believe in certain principles is one thing, but when it comes down to specific issues, if your stances aren't in line with the stated principles, then I say you're not truly a libertarian.  I can say I'm against aggression but then support taxation.  I generally still refer to minarchists as libertarians, but it's mainly colloquial.  I assume pure libertarianism is "no aggression" and then everything else is a continuum.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 12:01 AM

rated by 0 users

It can be very difficult to see the libertarian principles in some situations.  I see that you are refrencing the Zionism/Libertarian thread.  There was one person mentioning that the authoritarianism in North Korea is an internal matter that only affects Koreans, so it's different from the Israel/Palestine situation.  I understand where he is coming from, but I disagree with that.  I do not care to what culture/ethnicity/religion/group someone feels they belong to - they have a right to not be aggressed against by the state or any other individual.  Whether it is the North Korean state against the North Korean people, the Israeli state against the Israelis, the Israeli state against the Palestinians, Hamas against Palestinians, Hamas against Israelis, or the American government against etc.  You get the point.

I feel that many people in that thread missed the point.  There has been aggression by many individuals in that situation.  Saying that Zionists stole the land is to generalize about all Zionists, and there were many who purchased land legitimately, even if there were more (I don't know the percentages) who may have used violence instead.  To say that the Jews (because when we say Israeli, we really don't mean Israeli Arabs) stole the land of the Palestinians is to do a very un-libertarian thing.  Just as it is un-libertarian to generalize that the Palestinians want to kill all the Jews etc.

As a libertarian, I cannot support either Hamas or the Israeli state.  When governments are at war with each other, I really cannot side with either one.  The people under the state may or may not support warring with each other, but it is ultimately the individuals in the state that do the warring.  That being said, governments can be less evil than other governments.  Then it depends on your own criteria on how evil you think a government might be.

I'm going to step away from talking about that thread any more.

 

So the question I have is “what is really to be a libertarian?”

Is it enough to believe in libertarian principles but not necessarily to act according to those principles? Or one has to live and practice libertarian principles to be really considered a libertarian?

Your actions reflect your beliefs.

Okay I lied, I want to bring up a quote from the Israel/Palestine thread:

JB Say:

You say: “I never said that or implied it. Palestinians, like all people, deserve peace and freedom, but they can't have that because most of their population support setting up islamic laws”

If a majority of Palestinians want to follow Islamic law they should be allowed to do so as long as they don’t try to impose it on others. But where’s the proof that most of Palestinians favor an Islamic state?

You say: “I highly doubt that there are any arabs in the area that support anything secular”

Again where is the proof? Arab protesters throughout the Middle East are asking for more freedom and democracy not an Islamic state.

This, in my mind, is most certainly not a libertarian viewpoint.  The idea that if a majority of Palestinians want to follow Islamic law that they should be allowed to so long as they don't impose it on others is wrong.  That is tyranny of the majority.  I don't care if they would only do it to themselves and not Jews, it is still wrong and not libertarian.  To be fair, you did state that you don't think it would be the case, but that you are okay with it disturbs me.

The viewpoint of majority rules is not a viewpoint I would expect from a libertarian.

Reply

JB Say replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 12:37 AM

rated by 0 users

Actually I didn't want to start a debate about the the Israeli-Palestinian here. However it's true that that debate got me thinking about what it means to be a libertarian. But you are right about majority rule being unlibertarian. It's very difficult to always keep libertarian principles in mind when we deal with the real world, a world that is very unlibertarian. I did however say that they should not impose it on others. Islamic rule should not be imposed on those who don't want it.

The debate I was hoping to start is about how to live your 'libertarian faith' in a socialist world. I mean every single country in the world is a socialist country (in a misesian sense). People in the left appear to be the ones with a conscience, the ones who express moral outrage (Chomsky etc.), the ones who write about the plight of the dispossessed. Yet these same leftists advocate some sort of socialist government, a government that according to Mises and Hayek cannot rule but by violence and creates a lot of misery.

Take for example the case of Lybia where the libyan government attacks rebels who are also a de facto government. What should a libertarian think about that? I mean for a libertanian a government is a criminal entreprise. So the rebels are criminals like Khaddafi and his henchmen from a libertarian point of view. But how can I not feel sympathy for a group of people who are fighting for their freedoms? And how do I conciliate that sympathy with my knowledge that these 'freedom fighters', if they get their way are going to have a socialist government and impose a majority rule on everyone else.

Generally speaking, I have sympathy for those individuals in the Middle East who are fighting for "Freedom". But their Idea of freedom is a socialist state: majority rule, taxing the rich to give to the poor, land redistribution, welfare, government control of the economy. Basically people are fighting and dying for freedom but they don't even know what freedom means. What they think is freedom is actually slavery. As a libertarian can you support these people's struggle for freedom knowing full well what the end result will be?

How about the case of a country where the government discriminates against a minority? Let's imagine a country with yellow people and green people. Yellow people get government jobs but green people are not allowed to get government jobs. Yellow people get welfare benefits but green people are barred from them. How does a libertarian feel about that? One the one hand there is discrimination but on the other hand, knowing that taxation is theft, the only way to end the discrimination is for the government to give stolen money to the victims of discrimination.

In conclusion, libertarians generally agree on what the world should look like: no state/minimal state, no aggression, respect of private property etc. But how do libertarians deal with the real anti-libertarian world? How do they apply their moral principles in the real world ? How do they feel as human beings? What do they do when libertarian principles conflict with human feelings?

Reply

JB Say replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 1:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Gotlucky,

I liked your post, but this sentence is what I liked most:

"Your actions reflect your beliefs."

So true! So powerful!

Thank you

Reply

Prateek Sanjay replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 2:16 AM

rated by 0 users

JB Say:

I mean every single country in the world is a socialist country (in a misesian sense).

Mises stuck to a very specific, narrow meaning of socialism, and did not apply it broadly. He considered United States and Britain to be capitalist countries, and didn't regard interventionism as socialism.

Reply

Eric080 replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 2:52 AM

rated by 0 users

Sure I sympathize with the rebels, no doubt.  There is outright despotism and then there is mild despotism.  Mild despotism is probably better than living under a dictator.  I don't feel that the government taxing somebody to spend on something that the citizen probably would buy had the government left him alone (i.e., roads, school, etc. and I realize this is still aggression and these products suck) is more tyrannical than having a state-owned media, suppression of free speech, insane punishment for crimes, etc.  Like I said, there is a continuum.

Reply

JB Say replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 12:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Prateek Sanjay:

JB Say:

I mean every single country in the world is a socialist country (in a misesian sense).

Mises stuck to a very specific, narrow meaning of socialism, and did not apply it broadly. He considered United States and Britain to be capitalist countries, and didn't regard interventionism as socialism.

 

So what did he mean then when he said that a middle of the road policy leads to socialism?

Reply

BlackNumero replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 12:47 PM

rated by 0 users

to add a interesting twist to the thread, its hard to be pure "100% liberatarian" in today's society. I think all of us would like to see the end of the FDA, but we all eat their approved meat. Along with driving on government roads. And using fiat money. etc etc.

Reply

Ama-GI replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 12:49 PM

rated by 0 users

"so as long as they don’t try to impose it on others"

That is not tyranny of the majority.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 1:00 PM

rated by 0 users

@BlackNumero

I disagree with this sentiment.  I think Murray Rothbard put it very well:

 

The criterion we should use in the Nozick case is, I believe, an easy one. There are far more difficult questions. What about working as a government employee? It is true that, other things being equal, it is far better, on libertarian as well as pragmatic grounds, to work for a private employer rather than government. But suppose that the government has monopolized, or virtually monopolized, your occupation, so that there is no practical alternative to working for the government?

Take, for example, the Soviet Union, where the government has, in effect, nationalized all occupations, and where there are no, or virtually no, private employers. Are we to condemn all Russians whatsoever as "criminals" because they are government employees? Is it the only moral act of every Russian to commit suicide? But that would be idiotic. Surely there are no moral systems that requirepeople to be martyrs.

The only proper course of action for a libertarian is to never add to the problems of the state.  Not acting to diminish it does not make you any less libertarian - it just makes you not an activist.

Living in a State-Run World by Murray N. Rothbard

Reply

BlackNumero replied on Sun, Jun 19 2011 1:51 PM

rated by 0 users

For the record I'm saying you can still be a hardcore libertarian and do all of those things. I guess the extremely subjective line is at what point are you just not acting to diminish it/aiding the state?

Reply

James replied on Mon, Jun 20 2011 6:00 AM

rated by 0 users

So what did he mean then when he said that a middle of the road policy leads to socialism?

He meant exactly what he wrote.  Mises always did.  It always tends towards to socialism, but it isn't socialism yet.  Not the way he understood it, though arguably many contemporary socialists themselves no longer take the position that public ownership of the means of production is the essential criterion for 'socialism' - they take a more redistributive stance, which Mises would probably have described as 'middle of the road' in his day, which was quite some time ago now.  Unlike most Keynesians and neo-Keynesians, serious socialists actually read Mises, so maybe they accepted his argument in this regard, and are content to push for 'middle of the road', knowing it will lead to what they really want. :p 

It's true that you can't really take a principled position between a free market and the old-skool definition of socialism, but that's never stopped politicians and their pet economists from taking an unprincipled position...

Reply

Neodoxy replied on Mon, Jun 20 2011 10:43 AM

rated by 0 users

JB Say:

So what did he mean then when he said that a middle of the road policy leads to socialism

People use interventionism to solve societal problems, this backfires so more government control is needed, so on and so forth and so society as a whole moves further and further towards socialism.

As for the original question; you can be a liberal without following the standard Wikipedia subscription of what a liberal is, slight differences need not exclude you from following an ideology. This is also true of libertarianism. It also gets tricky with things like illegal immigration, where you can make the case that because of their crossing the border, in the current setting, they will infringe upon the liberties of others, whilst the act in a free market setting will be fine. If you could press a button and get at least a substantially free market, and huge amounts of civil liberties, then in my book you're a libertarian.