In a recent column my friend Bob Reich wrote convincingly that Ron Paul is attracting the support of many youth because several of his messages are correct, even if wrapped in a misguided overall ideology. As Reich noted, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate calling for the end of America's horrendously wasteful wars, a worthy position. Paul also rightly emphasizes the massive corruption that has overtaken Washington.
Yet Ron Paul's appeal goes beyond these specific positions. His libertarianism itself is beguiling. Like many extreme ideologies, libertarianism gives a single answer to a complicated world. It seems to cut through the fog and get to the heart of solutions; illusions, alas, but powerful ones nonetheless.
Libertarianism is the single-minded defense of liberty. Many young people flock to libertarianism out of the thrill of defending such a valiant cause. They also like the moral freedom that libertarianism seems to offer: it's okay to follow one's one desires, even to embrace selfishness and self-interest, as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.
Yet the error of libertarianism lies not in championing liberty, but in championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values. Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable -- all are to take a back seat.
When libertarians translate the idea of liberty into the political and economic spheres, they argue that government should operate only to protect personal liberty and not for any other cause. According to libertarians, the sole role of government is to enforce private contracts and to keep the peace so that no one can use force to deprive the liberty of another. In English political theory, this is called the "night watchman state."
By taking an extreme view -- that liberty alone is to be defended among all of society's values -- libertarians reach extreme conclusions. Suppose a rich man has a surfeit of food and a poor man living next door is starving to death. The libertarian says that the government has no moral right or political claim to tax the rich person in order to save the poor person. Perhaps the rich person should be generous and give charity to the neighbor, the libertarian might say (or might not), but there is nothing that the government should do. The moral value of saving the poor person's life simply does not register when compared with the liberty of the rich person.
Most ethical and political systems find the libertarian position abhorrent, indeed preposterous. Most would hold that the government can, should, and indeed must, tax the rich person to save the poor person. That's because most ethical and political systems hold that liberty is only one value among many important values, and that the value of the indigent's life takes priority over the liberty of the rich individual.
Libertarians defend their single-mindedness on three separate grounds: ethical, economic, and political. Ethical libertarians, exemplified by the late novelist Ayn Rand, hold that liberty is the only true virtue. Rand claimed when a rich man responds to a poor person's plea for help (even by giving mere pennies), the rich man actually debases himself. This view is the opposite of Christian charity and Buddhist compassion, according to which moral worth is achieved by helping others.
Economic libertarianism claims a more pragmatic position, that economic freedom in the marketplace is the sole true source of prosperity. Yet economic theory dating back to Adam Smith and up to Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman has explained why society should turn to government when the conditions of market competition do not apply. The affirmative role of government includes public education, promotion of science and technology, environmental protection, and the provision of infrastructure. Friedman and Hayek both championed a state guarantee of basic needs for all citizens.
Political libertarianism is the idea that only the strict devotion to liberty will preserve liberty, and that government intervention is "the road to serfdom," in the famous words of Hayek. Hayek wrote his defense of free markets in 1945, in the shadow of fascism and communist totalitarianism. He warned his readers in Western Europe not to endorse state ownership of industry because public ownership, said Hayek, would eventually undermine political freedoms. The idea of limited government in the defense of liberty clearly taps into America's founding history as well, tea party and all.
Yet political libertarianism is not much of a guide to real-world politics. Modern history has shown that activist democratic governments, ones that provide public goods and help for the poor, do not really threaten liberty. In Scandinavia, for example, where the governments are much more activist than in the United States, democracy is very vibrant and far less corrupt than in the U.S. In fact, by keeping mega-income under control, the Scandinavian countries have avoided the kind of plutocracy -- government by the rich -- that has engulfed Washington.
Libertarianism has many historical roots. Some of the darker roots are the self-justification of powerful social groups that wish to deny society's responsibility to weaker and poorer members of society. Racism and libertarianism have had their dalliance, as Ron Paul's personal journey makes plainly evident. Even today, Paul opposes the civil rights legislation of the 1960s on the ground that society has no right to deny the "liberty" of racist behavior. Even if Ron Paul himself is no racist, he gives comfort to racists.
When I was a student all too many years ago, the late, great Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick published a libertarian tome, Anarchy, State and Utopia. As students we found it fascinating. It seemed to justify a pure free-market society. Yet Nozick himself could not answer the question about why liberty should be the only value that counts. He wrote that it probably had to do with "the meaning of life," but that he'd have to grapple with such issues "on another occasion." Later in life, Nozick rejected his previous flirtation with libertarianism, recognizing the play of many values.
A leading libertarian before Ron Paul, 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, famously declared that, "extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." Fortunately a vast majority of Americans begged to differ; Goldwater lost in a landslide. America has achieved it greatness not through a single-minded ideology but through pragmatism and the wisdom to embrace several important values. A vast majority of Americans today embrace liberty, civic responsibility, and compassion, and seek a government built upon all three. We are the better individuals and a much stronger society for it.
Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs
Trevor Burrus: Libertarianism, Rightly Conceived
Earth to Mr. Sachs: Libertarians Founded the United States
Andrew Napolitano recently showed a clip in which Rick Santorum explained his views on libertarianism. His comments are also instructive in understanding his animosity (politically) towards Ron Paul. Santorum said:
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
As David Boaz pointed out in the interview with Napolitano, Santorum seems to oppose a basic American principle- the right to the pursuit of happiness. I agree with him on this, but there is something even more fundamental here than that. It has to do with the conservative philosophy itself. One of the statements that Santorum makes is true. "That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."
http://www.dailypaul.com/201823/earth-to-rick-santorum-libertarians-founded-the-united-states
Ayn Rand = marxist who discarded some notions of revolutionary communism and simply added private property protection to her revolutionary/experimental concept.
Elsworth Toohey= the ultimate straw man argument. Ridiculous book from conception, to characters to the way it lays out its argument.
Allen Greenspan= your greatest proponent, except you all disavow him. The reason he's disliked by the libertarian community is because he left the religious side and actually worked in the real world.
Libertarianism has never been tested or tried in a real modern economy. If you have an example that lasts over 50 years-- go for it. No, not the early US. The early US federalizes property regularly, that's easy to document. Moreover, the US system is grafted onto the Anglo system which goes back to before the Magna Carta. The system is 3 parts.. holders of property, the people, and the government. The right to petition is written into the declaration. It was written there as a complaint because the right was already assumed from the previous 600-700 years.
You will never see a form of government that you believe in actually practiced. Government has a role as referee, among other things. It's role is established and historic.
I don't care what commodity backs the currency as long as it's not the labor and energy of a slave population.
Especially watch the episodes in which the whole town of Walnut Grove comes together to build a school for the blind. Those episodes also have a strong anti-racist theme.
As to Ayn Rands view of charity her own words debunk Sachs' lie about her:
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
I'm surprised the editors approved this article containing so many errors.
My libertarianism says that you can live as you please. You can form whatever associations you wish. Want to be a communist? Great, form a commune and go for it. Want to be a hermit? Have at it. Want to participate with others in a free and voluntary society? Welcome to the club. Why is voluntaryism so scary to the statists? Because they are afraid that left to their own choices, most people will reject their prescription for what ails us, and go back to taking care of themselves and their own communities.
Meanwhile, libertarianism rests on protection of property. But if you follow chain of title on your little plot in the US, eventually you get to a dead end somewhere in the mid 1800's to 1600's, depending on location. Yep-- no one made that first purchase. Let's just say that was 'donated' by force.
I'm still more interested in the second question. That the origin of property here begins with a taking by eminent domain over the whole continent before it became property. For me, it undermines the high minded philosophy. It shows How essential government has been throughout.
And your second paragraph is an argument that has been refuted hundreds of times over. It may be true that the land was taken from someone by force in the past. But it was the establishment of rule of law protecting property rights that ended the constant warring and killing over the land.
A picture Dr. Sachs makes is the rich man living next to a "dying" poor man. He suggests libertarians would just let the poor man die, not share, and be happy with himself. What happens in non-libertarian government is that zoning laws and other ordinances are made to push the poor people out of society. These people are then denied so much opportunity and they end up fighting with each other. In "liberal" Marin County it's impossible for poor people to live there because of zoning laws. They deny groups that want to house homeless people once a week during the winter months. In the libertarian state, the poor person might be able to work for the richer person and move ahead in society. That is not possible today.
I would counter that argument by asking how anyone could choose to be compassionate without their liberty to do otherwise. Compassion is important. I would not be a very wise or decent person to suggest otherwise. And ensuring justice is one of the few legitimate purposes of a voluntary government. But it is not justice to steal from someone in order to give to another. Justice is preserving everyone's freedom so that they may find moral solutions to their problems.
Ultimately, the reason Mr. Sachs cannot fathom such a system working, is because he has no faith in individuals. The irony of this, is that he somehow has faith in a government made of those same individuals. The only difference between the two, is that governments bully citizens into acting in a manner different than they would otherwise act. I don't defend bullies.
A few quotes from Rand do not encompass or even accurately represent Rands views, nor do Rands views represent the breadth and depth of libertarian though - just as a few quotes from Rawls do not encapsulate the entire progressive movement.
Just like liberalism and conservatism libertarianism is a big tent with a wide variety of views not all dogmatically bound to a single precept. Most libertarians care greatly about all the ills of the world they are accused of being blind to. Unlike progressives they are unwilling to sacrifice individuals rights and liberty to pursue solutions that have an abysmal record of failing the downtrodden, just to be seen with their heart on their sleeves.
As free markets were being born Adam Smith noted that their effect would be to significantly improve the lot of the least well off. It is the engine of free individuals engaged in the free exchange of ideas, goods services - whatever, that has produced the enormous wealth of the modern era and ended 150,000 years of subsistence for most of humanity.
Spontaneous order from free individuals pursuing their wishes, does not perfectly meet the needs of every individual, but it does a far better job particularly for those we are accused of turning our backs on, then any other ideology or solutions. The left should be ashamed of what it has done to those in need.
In fact, she was a critic of a vast number of government policies which KEEP the poor, poor. You may disagree with her criticisms of those policies, but that does not lead to the conclusion you make about her.
Being a teacher of philosophy, I am sure you understand the fallacy of the strawman argument, and ad hominem.
Since when has the ad hominem argument become acceptable in civilized discourse?
- Ayn Rand
Is this a conclusion that follows from that quote, and some other premise that you believe but Ayn Rand has expressly rejected?
Liberals tend to like the bill of rights. I think, as far as the law goes, Libertarians and Liberals agree on almost every decision that has resulted from an argument regarding one of the first 8 amendments. These amendments do not provide rights to individuals. They limit the power of the government against individuals. This is not anarchy. This is not some ridiculous ideal. This is limited government.
Zero effective government regulation in most civilized countries aside from
banning certain kinds of very egregious content such as kiddy
porn. Fastest growing economy in the world, strongest freedom of
expression.