Category Archives: Libertarianism

Most of us remember the moment we became libertarians. Its quite unlike becoming a progressive or a conservative, as in either of those cases one usually grows up with that value system or adopt it over a period, such as at university. For many libertarians, however, our conversion was when we came to a particular realization about the nature of government, force, or man.

My ah-hah! moment was when I read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard in 2013, and for the first time understood how property rights came to be. Rothbard explained it logically and clearly, starting with the lone Crusoe, adding Friday, and building up to a complex society. He explained how the vesting of property does not change as society becomes more complicated, and that it is in fact the role of property rights to regulate the outcomes of situations in this complex society. Property rights, he explained, would exist and vest whether we explicitly recognize them or not. I was a socialist one day, and a libertarian the next.

From that point onward, how I viewed society changed at a fundamental level. While many of my associates in public policy complain endlessly about inefficient government or inconvenient lacunae in law, I see everything as a struggle between the individual and the State. Something as simple as a new guideline issued by the Financial Services Board in South Africa essentially comes down to an organ of state appropriating for itself more say or influence in a given matter, regardless of what the private individual or entity thinks about it. When Stefan Molyneux was still a libertarian in a former life, he said that the law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun, and this was an apt insight which I relied on in my university course on legal philosophy as well as my bachelors/honors thesis.

The rise of the social justice left, and the consequent rise of the alternative right brought about an interesting phenomenon, however.

Libertarians, myself included, nearly-universally condemn the authoritarianism of the social justice left, however, we do not make our opposition to them the defining feature of the movement. Having worked freelance, and now full-time, in South African public policy for about two years, I can comfortably say that the petulant children masquerading as advocates for social well-being are not our biggest concern. And, from what Ive seen and heard from my colleagues in Europe and North America, neither are the SJWs the biggest problems there. They are a big problem but not the biggest one. Government still enjoys that distinction, regardless of whether its a conservative or progressive administration. After all, Donald Trump has shown us that its going to be more or less business as usual, despite the drain the swamp rhetoric.

I believe much of the alternative right consists of former libertarians who felt libertarianism was not an adequate answer to leftist Critical Theory. These former libertarians, who have always had a conservative streak, were likely amazed when they realized libertarianism does not mandate that bathrooms be segregated according to sex; indeed, libertarianism is firmly agnostic in this regard. Similarly, these former libertarians could likely not bear the thought that their chosen philosophy did not regard Third World individuals as default others. In other words, the revelation that libertarianism does not have a particular country, or an identity, or a volk or nation, proved concerning, giving way to their base instincts.

There used to be a time when I thought once you became a libertarian and truly understood the concepts and theory of libertarianism it is impossible to un-know your newfound insights and regress away from libertarianism. However, these last two years have proven that it is, indeed, possible for individuals who used to accept economic concepts like value subjectivity to suddenly believe they can dictate the value of certain things from their pedestal. Individuals who used to understand that it is essentially self-defeating to not be an individualist, became collectivists. Imagine my surprise when I saw supposed former libertarians jumping with joy at the thought of import tariffs and a ban on the Muslim burka in some places.

And when you push them, they will turn around and say lolbertarians have not succeeded in anything and are ignorant about the importance of culture in public affairs. It is all very convenient: once theyve left libertarianism, suddenly libertarians become ignorant, naive, and idealistic. As if our collective state of stupidity was metaphysically delayed until these individuals decided that theyve had enough of being calm and reasonable about public policy. Seemingly out of nowhere, and quite arbitrarily, those insights these former libertarians had about government, force, and man, are gone.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

Read more:
The Chief's Thoughts: Moving Away From Libertarianism? - Being Libertarian (satire)

Unfortunately, Dennis Beard's letterto the Tribune is a completely distorted view of libertarianism. He equates that philosophy with Russian nihilism. American libertarians are anything but nihilists. They have strong beliefs. First, and foremost, they believe in individual freedom, not anarchy. They are strong supporters of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

While libertarians believe in the rule of law, they also believe in limited government. The Declaration states that people have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't include the words only if the government says it's OK. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia, The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Regrettably, many Americans now believe, and it appears that Mr. Beard may be among them, that government has a right, through numerous taxes and regulations, to tell us how to lead our daily lives. Do the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington and Springfield really know what's best for us?

Finally, Beard stated that in America it was the rich ... who were longing to get rid of government. He provides no facts to support that statement.

Perhaps he should do more reading in American history and in libertarian philosophy. I suggest he start with The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz.

Robert Angelica, Downers Grove

Visit link:
The truth behind America's libertarianism - Chicago Tribune

Pope Francis arrives at St Peter's Square for his weekly audience (AFP/Getty Images)

Mainstream believers in the free market do not think that all relationships that create ties must be eliminated

Late last month, the Pope went on the attack against libertarians. Many supporters of a free economy from lots of different perspectives describe themselves as libertarian, though it is not a label I like.

Understandably, such people were unimpressed by the Popes remarks. This attack on libertarianism perhaps touched a raw nerve, given strong implications in past statements from Pope Francis (and, to an even greater degree, by Cardinal Rodriguez of the Honduras) about free markets creating an economy of exclusion and greater inequality.

There is understandable concern that comments such as these, coming during an era in which global inequality is falling and poverty falling more rapidly than at any time in the history of the planet, will change the political climate in such a way that policies that lead to prosperity for the poor will be rejected.

So, is his attack on libertarianism yet another attack on free markets? As so often with the Pope, it is difficult to say. However, he seems to be attacking a particular philosophical mindset. It is, indeed, incompatible with Catholicism to believe that only the individual decides what is good and what is evil or to deny the common good because the notion of good deprives freedom of its essence. He suggested that libertarianism promoted the idea that all relationships that create ties must be eliminated. Well, certainly such ideas should be contested.

But, these are not the views of mainstream believers in a free economy, or even mainstream libertarians. Those who believe in a free economy, do so because it promotes social co-operation, harmony, peace and prosperity. The sophisticated social institutions, such as mutual banks and insurance companies, friendly societies etc, which were so pervasive in early 20th century Britain, were the product of the socialisation that arises in a free society governed under the rule of law.

As Hayek (often described as a libertarian) put it, the silliest of the common misunderstandings is the belief that individualism postulates (or bases its arguments on the assumption of) the existence of isolated or self-contained individuals, instead of starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society.

The vast majority of those who believe in a free economy and who would style themselves libertarian believe that the coercive power of the state is problematic and, when over-reached, does not lead to social harmony or prosperity. This is something to which Aquinas gave a substantial amount of thought, and it is a subject where words should be chosen carefully and where critical analysis is important. Libertarians have come to a particular view about the role of the state (for a variety of reasons) and do not automatically eschew the whole idea of the common good.

It is true, that there is a small number of libertarians who regard selfishness as something good in and of itself. However, it is difficult to understand how the Pope could possibly come to the conclusion that there are grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education.

At the last election, only 11 per cent of university academics in the UK declared a voting intention for a party that was not explicitly socialist or social democratic, and the majority of that 11 per cent will not have been libertarian. Even if libertarianism is problematic, the 2 or 3 per cent of university academics who might be libertarian do not constitute a dangerous invasion.

See the article here:
What Pope Francis got right and wrong in his attack on libertarianism - Catholic Herald Online (blog)

Stephanie Slade is an editor at the libertarian magazine Reason. At its aptly named "Hit & Run" blog, she has posted a criticism of Pope Francis' speech at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences last Friday, April 28. The magazine also ran a podcast featuring Slade and other Reason editors discussing the talk. I note in passing, and in confusion, that Slade was recently named a contributor at America magazine.

It is more than a little rich to read Slade repeating her accusation that the pope's "ignorance of basic economics has led him to a bad conclusion about which public policies are best able to reduce the crushing yoke of poverty in the world." It goes without saying that the Holy Father is not an economist, but he has seen firsthand the ill effects of the economic policies Slade celebrates. They are not hard to find in Argentina or, for that matter, in Washington, D.C.

Slade further offers this diagnosis: "The problem is not so much that he's speaking to issues that go beyond the scope of his office; the problem is his speaking to matters on which he is ill-informed. In this case, his statements betray a shallowness in his understanding of the philosophy he's impugning. If he took the time to really engage with our ideas, he might be surprised by what he learned."

Of course, a basic familiarity with this pope's writings and speeches would alert you to the fact that his understanding of philosophy is not shallow at all, but that his disgust at ideology is pronounced.

More importantly, this pope, like his predecessors, comes at issues related to the market economy not from the utilitarian stance Slade proposes. We can all offer statistics to make the case that capitalism works or it doesn't. The deeper concern is with both the ethical values capitalism demands and with the anthropology it presumes. "Greed is good" is not really a parody on the modern economic ethical stance. And no Christian theology can start with the premise that self-interest, enlightened or otherwise, is an appropriate starting point for ethics, Christian or otherwise.

Get the latest from NCR right in your inbox!

As for the anthropological difficulties the Catholic faith discerns in libertarianism, Francis was quite clear in his talk:

The radicalization of individualism in libertarian and therefore anti-social terms leads to the conclusion thateveryone has the "right" to expand as far as his power allows, even at the expense of the exclusion and marginalization of the most vulnerable majority. Bonds would have to be cut inasmuch as they would limit freedom. By mistakenly matching the concept of "bond" to that of "constraint," one ends up confusing what may condition freedom the constraints with the essence of created freedom, that is, bonds or relations, family and interpersonal, with the excluded and marginalized, with the common good, and finally with God.

It is precisely its overvaluation of personal autonomy that makes libertarianism repugnant to Catholic anthropology.

There is a diversity among libertarians, Slade argues, and it is wrong to see them all as devotees of Ayn Rand. Fair enough. But it is also true that Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for almost two decades, was a member of the Ayn Rand "collective" for even longer. It is also true that the most prominent and powerful libertarian-leaning politician in the country, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, encouraged his interns to read Rand and he publicly stated that Rand was his inspiration in grasping the morality of capitalism.

Ryan may now claim that he has abandoned Rand for Aquinas, but the "repeal and replace" legislation illustrates that he has not entirely abandoned his Randian past. Besides, just because some libertarians make the attempt to reconcile their ideology with, say, natural law philosophy, doesn't mean they succeed.

Indeed, the libertarians and sort-of libertarians always betray their hand when the subject of the rule of law comes up. They are ardent proponents of strong property law, but always resistant to the kinds of government regulations that would make the market more humane. Libertarians resist development aid, labor regulations, minimum wage laws, taxes on surplus income, etc. Their confidence in the market's ability to serve as the best regulator of all economic decision-making is their calling card. At least Greenspan had the courage to admit he was wrong after the 2008 meltdown.

Slade wishes to inform her readers that, in the event, none of what the pope said really has any binding claim on the conscience of a Catholic:

This is not a bad time to be reminded that popes aren't infallible, according to Catholic doctrine instead, they are possessed of the ability to deliver infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals. As I pointed out in my piece, "In practice, such 'definitive acts,' in which a pope makes clear he's teaching 'from the chair' of Jesus, are almost vanishingly rare." Arguably, though, the pope's remarks today to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences do pertain to faith and morals. He seems to be arguing that an outlook that places the individual above "the common good" is morally suspect.

Yes, such an outlook is morally suspect. And Slade can enroll in a theology course at any Catholic university to learn about the levels of authority that attach to various papal teachings.

This issue of the degree of authority attached to different kinds of utterances came up during a panel discussion in which I participated at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank here in Washington. As I pointed out, on the subject of poverty, the pope is only echoing what we read in the Gospels, and there are no more authoritative Christian texts than they.

Reason magazine is an opinion journal, but it still should abide by some journalistic standards. To her credit, Slade raises a warning flag in the podcast that she is speaking about the pope's talk based on a report at Breitbart. But she then says, "There doesn't appear to be text of the speech anywhere." Actually, it was posted at the Vatican website the day of the address. Surely, it is not asking too much of a journalist commenting on the Catholic Church to know that the Vatican publishes just about everything the pope says and posts it on the Vatican website.

On the podcast, Slade is not as offensive as her colleague Katherine Mangu-Ward in speaking about the pope's communication style: "He is the Donald Trump pope." Mangu-Ward also asked, "Is it not fair to say that the pope is a goddamned socialist?"

To this, Slade responded, "That might be going a little bit too far, but only a little bit."

To suggest that the pope is a socialist is yet further evidence of the intellectual distortion that comes from an ideological commitment, in this case, to a view that what really matters in human life are economic relations, and the only way to pursue those relations is via the unfettered market.

But Mangu-Ward's intellectual sloppiness allows me to reiterate a point I have made previously: You could take the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's objections to liberation theology, which was always based on some of the anthropological assumptions of that theology, not on its economic analysis, and apply those objections to libertarian ideology.

Slade tells the reader she is a Catholic. Great. I wish to remind her, however, that just because a Catholic has a thought does not mean a Catholic thought has been had. The incompatibility of Catholicism and libertarianism is a thing so obvious, if she fails to see it, it is not hard to conclude that she has drunk very deeply indeed at the well of libertarian ideology.

It is, as Pope Pius XI said, a "poisoned spring," not a well, and the life-giving waters that Jesus gives are not for sale on the market.

[Michael Sean Winters is NCR Washington columnist and a visiting fellow at the Catholic University of America's Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies.]

Continue reading here:
Francis' critique of libertarianism echoes the Gospels - National Catholic Reporter (blog)

Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim residesin Nikolai Wenzels first-rate defense of libertarianism in Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian.

Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy. Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals rights. A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything, Wenzel states. In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.

Wenzels argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive.

The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy. He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.

The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. There, then, says Wenzel, is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period. He calls this a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.

So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzels argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by rights they mean two very different things.

For Wenzel, respecting others rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion. He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer, do not violate others rights as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others. Nor does the polygamist.

Wenzels coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: Libertarianism essentially denies thatmoral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways. Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed.

Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functionsand, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianismwere entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data.

Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madisons original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent. The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders beliefs about government.

As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included among the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as the pursuit of happiness. The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders political theory.

The Founders political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (emphases added).

As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions.

The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophyhis famous Lectures on Law. In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole, that is what government should do.

Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that all governmentisinstituted for the general good.

Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America.

Thus Mark Kann writes in Taming Passion for the Public Good that the states right to regulate sexual practiceswas undisputed in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in Federalist 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports.

The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners. In his book, The Peoples Welfare, William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era.

The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well-being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs.

Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos.

See the original post here:
No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians - The Federalist

In a recent statement to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences entitled Towards a Participatory Society, Pope Francis spoke critically of libertarianism by name.I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism, warnedthe Holy Father.

Throughout the memo, Pope Francis refers to libertarianism as a selfish ideology where only the individual matters, which minimizesand denies the validity of the common good. Heequates libertarianismwith anti-social terms whereonly the individual gives value to things and to interpersonal relations and therefore only the individual decides what is good and what is evil, concluding that the philosophy is radicalization of individualism.

In fact, the opposite is true: individualism is a radical minority under the larger umbrella of libertarianism.

As both a devout Catholic and a staunch libertarian, my Pontiffswords are indeed cringe-worthy, but also cause no distress to either my faith, nor to my political conclusions, for several reasons.

First, as Tom Woodsaprominentlibertarian and traditional Catholicrecently pointed out in an email, there is likely a great deal being lost in translation here. In his homeland of Argentina, it is highly improbable that Francis as Jorge Bergoglioever encountered libertarianism as we understandit in the United States. Consider that even words such as conservative, liberal, republican, and democrat all mean vastly different things in South American and European contexts, let alone the minority descriptor libertarian.

This consideration seems especially applicablewhen you read the rest of the Francis line I began quotingin the opening paragraph:I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education.That alone should cause any libertarian reading to give a moments pause, if not spray their drink. Does anyonelibertarian or otherwisefeel that libertarianismas we understand it is pervasively invading the culture and universities? If only that were the case! To me, this seems to be describing more of the selfish entitlement mentality which indeed has invaded our millennial culture and universities, andfits the rest of his expressed concerns.

Now, Im not pretending for a moment that Pope Francis would endorse ourunderstanding of libertarianism. I am plenty aware of his political leanings, but I do always keep his statements in context of his Argentinian background, as well as the proper functions of his office. As I find myselfexplaining with increasing frequency, the Catholic teaching onpapal infallibility applies only to matters of faith and doctrine whichare specifically spoken ex cathedra. In other words, while Catholicscertainly owe it to the Petrine Office to respectfully consider and humbly reflect on thecounsel of the Successor of Peter, it is completely fine to ultimately hold differing opinionswith the Pope on non-doctrinal matters.

With even a basicknowledgeof the 1,984 year history of the Catholic Church, one realizes that popes can be and have been wrongsometimes very wrongin their personal opinions and behavior. St. Catherine of Siena is famous for firmly, yetrespectfully, correctingPope Gregory XI during the Avignon Papacy, just as St. Paul corrected Christs first Vicar, St. Peternot for false doctrinal teaching, but for failing to practice as he preached. The Church has survived far FAR worse scandal and crisis than a few controversial opinions and remarks. Catholicseither trust Matthew 16:18, or you dont.

In the event that the Holy Father is indeed addressingour libertarianism, which has been the immediate reaction, I assert that he is clearlyonly familiar with Ayn-Rand-style Virtue of Selfishness individualism, as he consistently equates the two.

Just as it is said about the Church, libertarianism is also a house with many doors, meaning converts enter from any variety of origins following differentpaths in the face or adversity or in search of truth. Some arrive at libertarian conclusions through selfish individualistic philosophies such as Ayn Rand, while others arrive at libertarian conclusions through selfless anarcho-pacifist or anarcho-distributist philosophies, such as Servant of God Dorothy Day. The philosophies of Rand and Day are polar opposites, despite both ending up under the libertarian umbrella in terms of political applications. With this in mind, it is very common for those first introduced to one of the many libertarian philosophies to presume it is representative of the whole, which a mistake I once made as well.

For me, the epiphany came when I realized that anyphilosophy or model of governancecan be squared with libertarianism, so as long as its voluntary, witheveryone participating of their own free will. Consider that convents and monasteries are very successful models of socialism, with no private property, communal ownership, each receiving only according to his need, etc. In fact, many of these religious housesare far older and more successful than any modern government! This only works, however, because it is purely voluntary on the part of the participants, who all share the same motive and goals. However, once socialism is forced upon others via the state, historically, it always gets rather ugly and fails miserably. Convents and monasteries are examples of free-market socialism, so to speak, because participants could freely walk away at any time or violate their rule without threat against their lives, liberty, or property; they persist, however, because of their voluntary vows.

Libertarianism, therefore, is simply the doctrine of free will and speaks nothing of ones motive or intention.

Ido stand with Pope Francis in decrying radical individualism as a worrisome selfish philosophy. Even where I agree with many of the practical applications of individualistconclusions, I believe themotive is misguided. At the same time, Ipromote voluntaryism as a peaceful libertarian philosophywhich seeks tomaximizethe common good and encourageacommunitarian frameworkpromoting a selfless ideal. My hope and prayer is that through this mistranslation or misunderstanding, the Holy Father may have an opportunity to at leastrecognize thisdistinction, if not fully promote voluntary governancelike that of Vatican Cityas a model for all societies.

Mark Cavaliere is a devout Catholic husband and father, an activist for life, and an advocate for liberty. As a voluntaryist libertarian, Mark asserts each individual's right to bodily autonomy from the moment one's body biologically comes into existence at conception through natural death. He is the Founder & Director of the Southwest Coalition for Life, spearheading a campaign that led to the closure of the abortion facility in Las Cruces, in spite of the fact that New Mexico is one of the most abortion-friendly states in the nation. He is now working to end the violence of abortion in Santa Teresa and El Paso, not through laws or politics, but by rallying the church community to help neighbors in need.

See the original post:
Pope Francis Mistakes Libertarianism as Radical Individualism - NM Politico (blog)

Being Libertarian (satire)

The Libertarian Revolution The Right Engle Being Libertarian (satire) A libertarian society cannot grow overnight. This should be obvious to anyone living in today's world of wall-to-wall government authority. Yet, many libertarians speak as if simply removing the state (from all aspects of life, at all possible speed ...

Read the rest here:
The Libertarian Revolution The Right Engle - Being Libertarian (satire)

Being Libertarian

Libertarian Living vs. Libertarian Governing Being Libertarian As a libertarian, I'm often called a hypocrite for my personal views on the way I should live my life, because I don't live libertarianism. But to me this is a very basic misunderstanding of what libertarianism is. I was raised Mormon, and I consider ...

See the original post here:
Libertarian Living vs. Libertarian Governing - Being Libertarian

From its beginnings as a distinct ideological movement in the postwar years, libertarianism has been a set of outsider ideas vastly disrespected by most American politicians and intellectuals. It was kept alive by small institutions, publications, and scattered academics (mostly in economics at first) who for decades were largely concerned with just keeping any expression of these ideas a going concern, barely expecting it could soon seriously influence mainstream political culture. (That story is told up to the turn of the 21st century in my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.)

Libertarians understand they are still to a large degree strangers in a strange land when it comes to the American political scene, struggling for impact in a world they never made, and any number of other cliches indicating that obvious truth: libertarianism is still a minority idea and libertarians are still embroiled in a difficult and long-term fight to influence political ideology and practice in America. Libertarians are generally not delusional on that point.

When it comes to awareness and acceptance of the overarching principles of libertarianism, even if not to their actuation across the board in governing, the situation for libertarianism is America has gotten much better in the 21st century along many dimensions. As Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie have argued, an often pre-political embrace of the options, variety, and choice inherent in the libertarian vision of free minds and free markets has spread massively in American culture, even if government qua government isn't shrinking.

One of the ironic demonstrations of libertarianism's inroads in American culture is that mainstream outlets find it necessary frequently to declare it dead, irrelevant, or fatally wounded. Lately we've had Tim Alberta in Politico assuring us that the libertarian dream is dead; and Adam Ozimek in Forbes saying libertarianism could be more successful if only it would narrow its vision a little.

Politico makes a good point as far as it goes: Until Donald Trump's bold political entrepreneurship proved surprisingly successful, there was reason to believe the GOP might be more inclined to go for a libertarian-leaning candidate such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rather than someone like Trump, policy-wise a Buchananite populist in the Rick Santorum style (to point to the nearest even slightly successful precursor in the GOP), but with less sanctimony, less even half-convincing Christianity, and more aggressive crudity and lack of intellectual polish.

Examining the respective political fates of Paul and Trump in the 2016 presidential race, now we know better. But by the very fact that it is an outsider political movement not fully at home in either major party, nothing about libertarianism's correctness or its hopes for the future depend on some short term victory; certainly nothing about the American people's choice of aggressive protectionist nationalism (to the extent we can be sure what people thought they were getting when they choose Trump) proves that libertarianism is either mistaken or dead.

It just proves libertarianism remains what it has been since it arose as a distinct movement in America after World War II: a small fighting rump, but one whose spread and reach is as high as it's ever been, even if it has failed in 2016, as it has always failed, to win the White House.

Otherwise, Politico's long article is merely a portrait of a moment in time, not the final fate of an ideology. Its observational power is mostly rooted in noting that, while he occasionally talks a libertarian-sounding game when it comes to, say, regulation, Trump is overall very opposed to the larger libertarian vision of truly free markets, respect for property rights, and restrained government power. True, and understood; especially as Trump's pre-election rhetoric that hinted at the possibility he might be less bellicose than his predecessors overseas is drowned out in the sound of exploding missiles.

Alberta's Politico article is a portrait of libertarianism as a philosophy still where it's always been: not a comfortable fit with either major party. But it has a greater grip on a greater number of prominent politicians, and Americans (see, for just one easily quantifiable example, the Libertarian Party nearly quadrupling its highest previous vote total) than ever in modern history.

If libertarians are rightor even on the right pathwith their understanding that our government is overtaxing, overspending, overregulating, and overextending its reach both into the lives of its citizens and across the globe in ways that make many people's lives worse and our future more perilous, then American history will show it an idea that's neither dead nor needing extensive pruning, as Ozimek in Forbes seems to believe.

Libertarianism: Is Less More?

Ozimek should rest assured that a narrowly-funded, scrappy, outsider ideological movement that has never quite been able to find a national politician they can all get behind (not even Ron Paul) knows full well that a majority of Americans don't yet agree with them.

That's the purpose of an organized minority ideological movement such as libertarianism: to do the research, education, advocacy, electioneering, and storytelling that might help Americans see that, to survey some libertarian ideas, the drug war is both wrong and unproductive; that stealing property from citizens without charging them with a crime is unjust; that market and price mechanisms need to play a role in a sensible and affordable health care market; that our foreign interventions often merely sow the seeds for the next perceived necessary foreign intervention.

With that understoodthis basic idea that a radical and small movement for ideological change is trying to move the political needle somewhere it isn't alreadyOzimek's basic argument that most Americans don't seem to shape their own decision-making or voting around small government proves libertarianism is terribly flawed and needs rethinking doesn't bear much weight. (Nick Gillespie explained here 12 years ago why obviously decisions other than tax rates or regulation are going to shape people's decisions about where to live as life is, blessedly, about more than just taxes and regulations.)

Ozimek has a narrow set of libertarian ideas he thinks are important and workable, and they are indeed part of the libertarian movement message. Precisely what they are isn't quite clearhe writes that "people want quality of life, economic growth, and good government. All three of these can be helped on some margins by utilizing market forces, deregulating, and increasing freedom. Libertarianism should focus on these margins, and accept that the all-too-popular vision of radical freedom and minimal government at all costs is not wanted by enough people to actually matter."

It sounds like what Ozimek really should be concluding, if he indeed believes that stuff about bettering the world through "utilizing market forces" etc. is that people and politicians that are not libertarian should be more libertarian. And that's what libertarians are trying to accomplish.

What advantagefor the libertarian as opposed for the Ozimekanfrom pursuing a narrower vision of freedom and limited government is not clear from this essay. Nor is it clear exactly what ideas of the libertarian movement he is recommending jettisoning, or keeping. (While Ozimek isn't rigorous on this point, he seems to be implying that somehow the existence of very libertarian people or arguments is harming the cause of slight libertarian improvement. I addressed whether libertarian extremism, that is, a full or radical version of the small-government vision, was harming the movement writ large last year. I didn't find the case proven.)

Libertarianism certainly hasn't cleared the field in American political culture yet. But to be held to such a standard, when 20 years ago it was considered so unknown and insignificant that publications of the stature and focus of a Forbes or Politico would never have bothered running articles about how and why it's allegedly failing and fading, is its own kind of victory in political culture, and a necessary prelude to more important ones.

View post:
Libertarianism Does Not Yet Rule America. Libertarians Know That. That's Not a Reason for Them to Abandon ... - Reason (blog)

The basic income is known for cutting across ideological lines. Libertarians, who have had a long history supporting the basic income, are also giving the idea a fresh look as a way to replace the current welfare system.

Many libertarians, though, remain skeptical of whether a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is in line with libertarian ethics, and other libertarians believe it would cause economic damage.

Daniel Eth, a PhD student at UCLA studying computational nanotechnology, argued in Thinking of Utilsthat strict libertarianism, particularly without UBI, enables oppressive systems to emerge, even when no one is acting in bad faith and all agreements are consensual.

Eth joined the UBI Podcast to discuss the problems of libertarianism that does not endorse basic income.

One of the primary issues with strict libertarianism, Eth argued, is that without a social safety net, workers are not truly volunteering for work, because they areagreeing to work simply to survive.

There is an uneven power dynamic and that contracts are almost inherently exploitative, at least for those that are living hand to mouth, Eth said.

At least with a basic income system in place, Eth said, the workers could decide to walk away from unreasonable working conditions.

if a basic income is large enough to satisfy peoples basic needs, it goes a long way to correcting for that (power dynamic), he said.

One area of agreement between Eth and libertarians is that market-based solutions tend to be much more effective than the alternative of central planning.

That is to say, without appropriate taxes to account for things like pollution, then the market outcome will not reflect these costs to society and the environment.

From this framework, Eth said something like a carbon tax would be a great way to pay for a basic income because it would account for pollution, but also allow the market to solve.

The market is almost like an algorithm, like what a computer might use to solve a problem and I think it tends to be better at finding solutions than central planning. But you have to ask it the right question. You have to make sure you are solving the problem you want to solve, Eth said.

Tyler Prochazka has written 60 articles.

Tyler Prochazka is a Fulbright scholar completing his Master's in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. He is the features editor of Basic Income News and a coordinator for UBI Taiwan. Tyler launched the first Asia-Pacific basic income conference in 2017. Facebook.com/TaiwanUBI @typro

Read the original here:
Interview: Pitfalls of libertarianism without basic income - Basic Income News