Economist Jeffrey Sachs has joined the critics who, over the last year or so, are dismissing libertarianism as a simple-minded philosophy. In "Libertarian Illusions," Sachs takes libertarians to task for "championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values." "Libertarians," Sachs writes, "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 -- are to take a back seat."
In fact, most libertarians believe that the "other values or causes" listed by Professor Sachs are best promoted by promoting liberty. We believe so strongly in liberty because we believe that all those values are vital to humanity. At bottom, what ties libertarians together is the notion of a "presumption of liberty" -- that state action needs justification, not human freedom. This idea is far from controversial and, in fact, it is the founding principle of the modern liberal state.
Moreover, the government's track record in promoting Sachs' "other values or causes" is not stellar, to say the least. It is hardly compassionate or just to send a man to prison for life because he was caught smoking marijuana three times. It is hardly civic responsibility to lay waste to entire communities in the name of "urban renewal." It is hardly honest for members of Congress to leave office five times richer than when they entered. It is hardly decent to not let two people who love each other, of whatever sex, to marry. And forcing attendance in abysmal schools hardly promotes the survival of the poor, weak and vulnerable. A "presumption of liberty" would go a long way to addressing each of these tragic government failures.
Most libertarians recognize that there are situations for governments to step in and fill a gap that is not being filled through voluntary cooperation, including the possibility of a social safety net. But redistribution, if it is tried, should only come after rectifying a government monopoly on public education that has locked the poorest and most vulnerable into horrible government schools. It should only come after repealing onerous regulations that disproportionately hurt small businesses (regulations that were likely created by collusion between big business and big government). It should only come after ending a hopeless war on drugs that is destroying black America. In short, redistribution should only come after the government stops hurting those who need the most help.
Libertarianism not only promotes a robust defense of liberty, it advances an equally vigorous attack on the efficacy of government. Any government program that is tried must be truly in the "public interest" and not just in the interests of lawmakers seeking another term in office, interest groups promoting their well-being at the expense of the general welfare or to the detriment of future generations that will be saddled with unimaginable amounts of debt in order to achieve immediate, politically attractive goals.
These criticisms don't strike most people as off-the-wall because it seems most people believe that government is wasteful and inefficient. The list is notorious and extensive: fifty-dollar wrenches purchased by the State Department, subsidies to tobacco growers while simultaneously waging a war against smoking, roads to nowhere, carve-outs, kickbacks and back-room deals. Members of Congress have long been portrayed by stand-up comedians and sitcom writers as self-serving crooks, and bureaucrats are often lambasted in a similar fashion.
Yet, despite this increasing resistance, government moves forward, powered by its own internal forces. Those forces need not, and often do not, align with good governance in the public interest. Large, long-term benefits packages are given to public-sector employees in lieu of current pay raises because the politicians giving them out don't want the political liability of raising taxes on voters now. They would rather pass the financial and political costs down the line to their political successors. Similarly, Congress passes a massive health care overhaul that unconstitutionally forces individuals to purchase a product from a private company, a tactic also designed to avoid the political liability of a massive tax increase. We want it all but we don't want to pay for it, and a politician will always be there to ask "what do you want?" Yet it is the wise man who asks "what do you want more?"
So, perhaps the biggest difference between libertarians and the dominant political ideologists is simply this: while they believe that the problem with government is that the right people aren't in power, we believe that the problem with government is intrinsic to government itself, and that no theory of "throw the bums out" will ever give state officials the incentives and knowledge they need to do a good job. This is true despite the fact that the vast majority of government representatives and employees are good, hard-working people.
With the increasing prominence of Ron Paul, it is becoming apparent that more people are beginning to understand this fact. Professor Sachs' attempt to discredit Ron Paul by attacking the stereotypical libertarian hermit addresses none of the issues outlined above. Ultimately, Sachs' characterization of libertarians deserves no more attention than the epithet of "socialist!" that those on the right often throw at the left. Both are straw-man arguments that fail to appreciate the nuances of the respective philosophies they attack.
Jonathan Turley: 10 Reasons the U.S. Is No Longer the Land of the Free
Alex Porter: Why Does Mitt Romney Remain Uninspiring to Republicans?
Jeffrey Sachs: Libertarian Illusions
Jon-Christopher Bua: Republican Primaries: Guess What Folks? This Could Be It
Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government
What is Libertarian? | Institute For Humane Studies
Libertarianism.org | Exploring the theory and history of liberty
People like Mr. Sachs fail to ever consider the subjectivity of their perfect moral states. To them the government is compassionate and just and decent and whatever other nonsense because their lives are good. How just would a person who is barred from student loan eligibility for a dug conviction (laws now are slightly better) say that the government is?
It is crazy.
People like Mr. Sachs can champion the decency and compassion of government all they want while that government is not working to destroy their lives.
More upsetting I think is that Ron Paul is being called libertarian. He really is not. He is a republican who largely has republican ideas.
Lets hope more people are coming around to the necessity of Libertarian ideals in this country. For without those ideals, this country would not even exist.
As a small-L libertarian I love reading these because at least it means the message is getting out, but it will just be red tofu for this audience. Get ready for references to Somalia, racial inequality, economic freedom being violated by wealth, and "ROADS"!
It amazes me that liberals can be so hateful towards a philosophy that:
- believes the use of force to coerce individuals is bad
- believes people should be free to marry who they wish
- believes that race, gender, etc. should be non-factors in evaluating one's personhood and liberties
- believes that government favoritism towards any industry (via regulation or bailout) tilts the playing field, encourages corporatism, and furthers lobbying for the wealthy.
- believes indefinite detention, warrantless search, assasinations, and other forms of state brutality are inherent in unchecked government
- believes people can make up their own minds about what is good for them, can form their own associations, and can realize their own dreams as long as they have a government and court system that focuses specifically on protecting their rights and freedoms.
But no - we're a bunch of whiny brats looking to enjoy our spotted owl souffle while our monacles are polished by orphans' tears.
Sigh.
Perhaps, then, you can explain to me why it seems that 97% of Libertarians automatically vote for *ANY* Republican over *ANY* Democrat, as if only half a universe exists.
The second part (about no rules) and about corporations exploiting workers is also not very Libertarian. Non-aggression means you can't be exploited if you don't agree. No one forces you to work at a given employer. Customers aren't forced to buy one company's products. If a corporation acts maliciously there is always the court system for damages in tort, or the court of public opinion (stronger now with the Net) to hurt the corporation in the worst way - financially. What company would do things to lose its paying customers?
The net effect of regulation frequently is not consumer protection, but corporate lawyers rent-seeking and lobbying for advantage. Legislation requiring testing of toys for lead, for example, didn't harm the big toy manufacturers at all - they raised prices. But small mom and pop toy makers, who couldn't afford the testing, got run out of business, even though they were using homemade natural ingredients. All the legislation did was create a barrier to competition without necessarily making consumers any more safe. That's the essence of the libertarian position - that government interference in private business really only creates the opportunity for corruption and abuse.
Governments in the 20th century committed the vast bulk of homicides set next to private criminals.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Government taxation consumes VASTLY more of the product of our labor that private criminals.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=38710
Victims were robbed of ~ 17.4 billion total in a recent year, yet government budgets are north of 3000 billion, and governments spend a lot more than victims are robbed of every year on prisons, mostly on non-violent drug offenders.
What conceivable reason other than protecting your civil service paycheck, can you have to not be hostile to government?
The government that regulates small and upstarts out of business, to protect established companies from competition, protects us from corporatocracy?
A government that wants and builds the "authority" to micromanage everything but is filled with lobbyists protects us from corporatocracy?
Not really. Most Republicans and all libertarians and anarchists purport to believe that government is essentially bad--but since when are they, even collectively, in the majority?
"Libertarianism not only promotes a robust defense of liberty, it advances an equally vigorous attack on the efficacy of government."
Drop the "the efficacy of" part and you have a valid sentence. As the sentence stands, it is woefully misleading.
". . . the increasing prominence of Ron Paul . . . "
. . . is an illusion. He was just an oddball Texas politician in love with the greed-promoting philosophy of (immigrant, atheist) Ayn Rand a generation ago--and still is.
Sachs nailed the truth in his exceptionally well-conceived and well-written post. This one, IMHO, is just a puff piece.
Republicans, libertarians and anarchists collectively are not in the majority: Fact.
Libertarianism doesn't attack the efficacy of government, it attacks government: Fact
Ron Paul is no better-known or more-influential today than he was 30 years ago: Fact.
Calling verifiable specifics "subjective generalities": Invalid.
Calling printed words "mumbling": Inane.
Calling critics "simple-minded": Ad hominem and so, both a cop-out and poor form.
Nice try. But thanks for playing.
"What I was really saying in The Examined Life was that I was no longer as hardcore a libertarian as I had been before. But the rumors of my deviation (or apostasy!) from libertarianism were much exaggerated. I think this book makes clear the extent to which I still am within the general framework of libertarianism, especially the ethics chapter and its section on the 'Core Principle of Ethics.'"
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/misunderstanding-nozick-again/
What is "the mainstream of thinking" and what ideas would you "re-incorporate?"
The ACA is telling you to buy a product even if you don't use it or don't want to use it. If you use a car on public roads, then one, you've bought a car and two you're intending to use it in public space.......the entire example that you're using as your argument is just completely off base.
Textually speaking, this is not what prominent libertarians claim. For them, the power of people, collective rights, lacks authority against any individual power, a singular right, and must not be infringed (i.e. near anarchy). Infringed liberty is equal to slavery to libertarians. It's not epistemological uncertainty, nor a question of how to govern - plain and simple, it's individual right above all else, except transgressing the liberty of another. Perfect liberty isn't sought as an alternative to government, but perfect liberty wouldn't need government (in some Ayn Rand nightmare).
This is why Sachs is right to claim that libertarian is bat-shit crazy, because it puts the value of liberty above all others (and without justification to as why).
As societies advance and change the nature of law changes. Some are created to keep people acting proper (see laws regarding substance use and prostitution among others). This is apparently the compassion to which Mr. Sachs is referring. Keeping people from "harming" themselves and punishing them when they attempt to do it.
And hey, the government is there for them. It provides them with a nice incarcerated life for many years.
Huzzah for the savior that is government!