There are certainly overlaps. I'm glad for them. I like a lot of conservatives, I consider them allies and our core beliefs are similar (some, not all, of the time).
I also have so-called liberal allies, and libertarianism at its core is a liberal position.
If you're not comfortable with thinking of yourself as a liberal, you're probably not a libertarian.
First we need to define conservatism, libertarianism and liberalism.
Conservatism has come to mean one of three things:
Adhering to tradition;
Favoring a restriction of government power;
Some esoteric collection of beliefs regarding fiscal and monetary policy, immigration, religion, etc.
Liberalism:
Eschewing tradition,
Favoring individual freedom,
Some esoteric collection...
Libertarianism has come to mean a bunch of things too, but the only definition I'm going to give any time to is the strictest one: a belief in the liberty of the individual human being.
You can't value liberty without also valuing life and property - much has been said about how those things are all manifestations of a single thing. Suffice it to say, libertarianism could also be called, accurately, propertarianism or vitalitarianism.
You'll notice that one of the definitions crosses all barriers - the high estimation of liberty.
Modern conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians all meet that definition, though in different ways - something like flavors.
The reason libertarianism is actually a more liberal-like flavor is because of the first sort of definition I gave - its position on traditions.
Libertarianism is not a new thing. It hasn't been done before. The old way of doing things might be more like libertarianism, but it isn't libertarianism proper.
Libertarians prefer no state - that's a fact. If a system whereby the state is abolished can be shown to be workable (I believe that it can) a libertarian will prefer it because it necessarily means greater individual freedom - the core value of the libertarian. No libertarian anarchy (I tend to favor Bob LeFevre's phrase "autarchy") has ever existed before, and so we cannot harken to tradition to build it. It just won't work.
So, because libertarians want to throw off old forms of society in favor of new ideas, I call it a "liberal" type philosophy. In fact, libertarians are the only true progressives.
But here are some major differences and overlaps between all of our different stands:
1) Conservatives like the Constitution because the Founders wrote it, libertarians like the Founders because they wrote the Constitution.
I totally do not care about the personal achievements, beliefs, whatever about the founders of this country. I don't even care too much about this country. I'm not a Constitutionalist because it's the basis of the country, or because it's the way we (supposedly) used to do things, or because America, hell yeah!
That actually seems to be an argument employed by some of these conservatives.
I don't like the Constitution because it's the Old Way, because it's how Americans do things, or anything like that. Those are all things that can be judged in their own right. If the United States were founded on a philosophy of collectivism, self-sacrifice and submission, I would be an active opponent of the United States, and that's, I think, one thing that I don't share with conservatives.
I only like this country, I only like the Founders, because in their own way, they worked to promote the individual freedom that I value.
2) Sorry, "illegal immigration" doesn't bother me too much.
From a tactical standpoint, I have to oppose all these amnesty programs because they mean less freedom for me in the way of lots of new Democrat voters, and in some circumstances greater demands by the government so that it may supply its "services."
But morally, I don't care about illegal immigration because I don't think it's right for any person to tell any other person that they may not do business in this area simply because they didn't jump through the right hoops. If you've got money and a willing seller, buy land and build a house. I don't give a shit which side of the fictional border you're doing it on. If you've got someone willing to pay, take the job. I'm not concerned with the fact that your name is Jose.
Rights to life, liberty and property are not constrained by fictional borders. And that means that morally, all provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to every human being in the world. I don't care if you're fresh off the boat, I'm okay with you buying a gun, etc. Rights are rights, they're intrinsic to humans, not conveyed or to be hampered by a government.
3) It's not okay to hurt someone because your culture is okay with it.
I'm not going to give Ahmed a pass because in his world, beating his wife is normal. My value for human life supercedes, in my estimation, his magic sky-person's orders or his sheik's edicts. I will not have beheadings in my backyard because "we should respect his culture."
Fuck that. His culture sucks.
Likewise, the people who argue that we need to prevent the legal definition of marriage from covering homosexual couples can piss off.
The argument "That's how we've always done it" carries no water with me. "Marriage" can mean a joining - spiritually, physically, legally, it makes no distinctions. It is a simple unification. Got news for you guys - gays are already marrying. They're just not doing it in the sense of forming a legal union recognized by the state as "a marriage." I think I've already talked about how much I worry about what the state says, yeah?
I'd rather the state get out of the "marriage" business altogether. In fact, I'd like it to go out of business.
4) I don't care how much of a "gun nut" you are, chances are excellent I'm worse.
I can and have made vocal Second Amendment activists look like Brady Campaign spokespeople. Sorry, but like all rights, there ain't no such thing as a "reasonable regulation." Treat guns like hammers. Anyone with the cash and the wherewithall to convince the retailer to sell should be able to buy them. Social conventions and peaceful means to prevent their sale to those who may use them to harm others are fine. Laws (re: bullies with guns telling people what to do) aren't.
5) Wars, militaries, so on just don't make sense. Never have, never will.
I don't intend to argue about the necessity of protection. Fact is, militaries and wars are funded by taxes, which are stolen from subjects. Right off the bat, that makes them a moral problem.
Next you've got the fact that all a "military" can do that private citizens can't is:
- Fund its actions by stealing,
- Acquire systems that civilians are barred from,
- Conscript people.
Wars are also affairs of the state, most usually fought for conquest or to loot the public treasury, not for any morally justified reason. They also tend to harm the innocent - something that is a moral evil. Collateral damage isn't an excuse. If you harm an innocent, you should PAY FOR IT. Anything else is abuse.
I expect I'll probably continue this topic in time.
I'm still currently educating myself about libertarianism and I've not made all the logical leaps yet to consider myself a full fledged anarchist (but that seems to be where I am headed). Just what are the "social conventions" and "peaceful means to prevent [gun] sale to those who may use them to harm others."
ReplyDeleteI'm somewhat familiar with how an anarchist law enforcement/property protection/arbitration system could work, but what exactly would prevent people with known criminal intentions from purchasing firearms?
In the best case scenario, a simple refusal to deal. It's naive to assume that they'll never find someone to sell to them, but it isn't particularly far off to assume that a dealer would turn down anyone who didn't pass the sniff test.
ReplyDeleteIn a slightly more significant case - perhaps where a person is suspected to have a history of crime - people can utilize social networks to expand that refusal to deal beyond just weapons to, e.g. food.
In the worst-case scenario, the fact that no person will be denied the use of arms makes their criminal use a very poor gamble with life at stake.
you can piss off. have a nice day. :)
ReplyDelete