Here are five of the top ten things lefties should know about libertarians, but probably don’t. (I’ll follow this with a similar “Ten Things Conservatives Should Know About Libertarians” in a future post).
1. Libertarians are radical communitarians. The idea is that community should not be conflated with power held by government elites. That means communities are local, voluntary and a product of individuals with shared conceptions of the good. Communities emerge from common interests, problems, needs and other factors that bureaucrats, politicians and government elites can’t anticipate, know or design. We are radical communitarians because we don’t acknowledge the power of said elites to determine, preserve, or force community. We may even pool our resources communally and organize cooperatives if it suits our aims. We simply demand the right of exit and the right to retain our resources for newer, better communities--or even ourselves.
2. Libertarians care about the poor. The idea that charity should be a monopoly is deplorable to us. Indeed, one cannot equate moral benevolence with the low-cost measure of voting for the party of this social program or that. Goodness requires individual action—not voting away our philanthropy to government power-brokers in a distant capital. Indeed, the philanthropic/social entrepreneurship sector should be a much more expansive than it is, with all the iterations (experimentation, successes and failures) that philanthropy markets could offer, but that governments cannot. Government only offers the illusion of insurance, but it does not offer competing means of solving social problems (particularly given that a staggering 10 percent of GDP goes to “entitlements”). Welfare programs merely crowd out the social entrepreneurship sector (and thus innovation), which means charity-by-force gets left in the hands of bureaucrats. We also think simply that subsistence poverty should not be subsidized by the government in the form of welfare. If, however, government is going to subsidize dependency (i.e. the mob insists), do it in such a way that preserves the dignity of the individual and does not create unnecessary bureaucracy, deadweight loss, excessive dependency, special interest capture and some one-size-fits-all mechanism of social change.
3. Libertarians are not conservatives. Despite the occasional tag-team action between our respective groups, libertarians are not conservatives. We are suspicious of government power, to be sure—more so probably than conservatives. But we will ally with lefties when it is mutually beneficial. After all, we are, for the most part, socially liberal (indeed, it is unfortunate that the left appropriated this term). But we are not socially liberal because it’s fashionable and urbane, or because we have a gay relative. A principle of individual liberty lies at our centers, so liberty should extend to our bedrooms and bodies, too. Where liberty comes in conflict with liberty, there are hard cases to be sure. Ultimately, however, the idea that our choices ought to be sovereign lights our way through the murkiest issues—not tradition, nor religion, nor family values. Indeed, we are often just as hostile to right-wing taboos (homophobia, drug experimentation) as leftwing totems (government programs, Keynesianism). And yet some libertarians are religious and strictly shun more libertine choices. Paradoxically, therefore, we are probably the most tolerant strain of political animal. We only fail to tolerate interference from busy bodies and statists (harm), because the use of force is reserved exclusively for the protection of individual sovereignty.
4. Libertarians are not a monolithic group. There are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians. There are libertarians who believe in natural rights and those who believe rights are socially constructed (like me, for example). There are minarchists, anarchists and Ron Paul republicans. And we disagree on lots of things. But the one thing that unites us is the idea of non-harm, sustained by the rule of law. A principle of non-harm, however philosophically derived, guides our thinking on most matters. We do not acknowledge anyone’s right to harm anyone else for the sake of social justice, pet projects, pork or personal faith. Again, there are tough cases. But most are soluble. In any case, the thing we find most unfortunate is that we’ve been branded with a pot leaf. We are diverse to be sure, but are unified by principle, not pot.
5. Libertarians are not corporate apologists. The size and success of a corporation, so long as such success is not gained through collusion with government, force or fraud is none of our concern. “Big corporations,” if they are truly in the business of value creation – and not pulling the levers of subsidy or regulatory mischief – are big because they have, well, created a lot of value. In that respect, corporations must be selfish servants. To profit is to satisfy the wants and needs of others—for mutual benefit and mutual gain. Period. Yes, the Enrons of the world must be exposed and tried for fraud, as well as pay for those they injure. Yes, a company that pollutes the property of its neighbors or of a river must cease and desist, and should be sued for damages. But companies that honestly create value in people’s lives should be left alone to do so—even if said companies, like Walmart, out-compete other purveyors of shaving cream, or their patrons offend our elitist sensibilities (or aesthetics). You might say we’re ambivalent about big corporations until it becomes clear that their power derives from politics, not exchange. Greed and government are, after all, a combustible combination. (Then again, sometimes government creates the regulatory environment that forces the invisible hand towards collusion and corporatism over capitalism.)
(5-10 now here)
Comments