Libertarians, ???

[medicinal]

Why Libertarianism Is Mistaken"


by Hugh LaFollette
In John Arthur and William Shaw (eds)
Justice and Economic Distribution, 1979, 194-206.
[pdf version]

Taxing the income of some people to provide goods or services to others, even those with urgent needs, is unjust. It is a violation of the wage earner's rights, a restriction of his freedom. At least that is what the libertarian tells us. I disagree. Not all redistribution of income is unjust; or so I shall argue.

Libertarianism has experienced a noticeable re-emergence in the past few years. F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick have given new intellectual impetus to the movement1 while a growing concern for personal autonomy has provided personal ground for the sowing of the idea. Yet even though this theory is prima facie plausible and demands serious reassessment of the concepts of liberty and property, it ultimately fails. Once we admit, as the libertarian does, that the state justifiably takes on certain functions, for example, police protection of persons and property, there is no rational basis for believing that the state is unjustified in redistributing tax revenue. We cannot stop, as the libertarian suggests, with the minimal state of classical liberal philosophy. I will not, in this paper, say exactly how far beyond the minimal state we should go. I only argue that libertarianism is not a moral option. On the surface this conclusion seems meager, yet its implications are far-reaching. By eliminating a previously plausible and popular conception of distributive justice, we will narrow the alternatives. By identifying a major flaw in libertarianism, we will secure direction in our search for an adequate theory.

After briefly describing libertarianism I will argue that the theory is guilty of internal incoherence: the theory falls prey to the very objection it offers against competing theories. Then I will consider four possible libertarian replies to my argument. Each, I will claim, fails to disarm my internal objection. After concluding my argument, I will speculate on the roles freedom and property should play in an adequate theory of distributive justice.


A DESCRIPTION OF LIBERTARIANISM

Central to libertarianism is the claim that individuals should be free from the interference of others. Personal liberty is the supreme moral good. Hence, one's liberty can justifiably be restricted only if he consents to the restriction. Any other restriction, including taxing incomes for purposes of redistribution, is unjust. Or the libertarian may couch his theory in the language of rights: each individual has natural negative rights2 to at least life, liberty, and property. No one can justifiably harm him, restrict his freedom, or take his property--that is, no one can violate his rights--without his consent. Moreover, these are general (in rem) rights; they apply, so to speak, against the whole world. And since rights invariably have correlative duties, all the people in the world have the duty not to interfere with the right holder's life, liberty, and property. Each person possesses these rights simply in virtue of his humanity--he does not have to do anything to obtain this moral protec- tion. The possession of rights does not depend upon the consent of others. They are essential moral constituents of personhood.

However, we should note that these two ways of speaking seem to amount to the same thing for the libertarian. Libertarian theorists often move back and forth between talk of negative rights and talk of liberty. I suspect that is because they ultimately see rights and liberty as equivalent or because they hold a theory of rights which is grounded in personal liberty. That is, the libertarian might say, the reason we have all and only libertarian rights (absolute negative rights to life, liberty property, etc.) is that these rights protect individual liberty. Hence, on both models liberty is fundamental.

Libertarianism also contends that in certain prescribed circumstances there can be positive in personam rights, that is, that individual X has a positive right to, say, $1,000 and someone else Y has a positive duty to give X that money. These positive rights, however, are not natural rights; they are not possessed by all persons just because they are persons. They can arise only consensually. For example, if A promises B that he will serve as a lifeguard at B's swimming pool, then B has a right against A and A has a duty to B--a duty to guard those in B's pool. But unless A so consents, he has no positive duties to B, or to anyone else for that matter. Consequently, for the libertarian, there are no general positive duties and no general positive rights. There are only alleged general positive rights; claims to such rights (or of such duties) are mistaken. For if there were positive general duties we would have to violate negative general rights to satisfy them. For example, suppose everyone had a positive general right to life; then everyone would have rights (entitlements) to those goods necessary to stay alive, e.g., food to eat. But food, or the money to buy it, doesn't grow on trees (or, if it does, the trees are owned). Those who own the food or the money have negative rights protecting their possession of these things. And negative general rights, for the libertarian, are absolute.3

There are no circumstances in which these rights can be justifiably overridden, in which one's liberty can be justifiably limited without his consent. Hence, X's rights to property (or life or liberty) can never be overridden for the benefit of others (to satisfy the alleged positive rights of others). X can choose to charitably give his property to, someone, or he can voluntarily give someone a positive right to his property. Nevertheless, morally he cannot be forced--either by legal sanctions or moral rules--to give up his life, liberty, or property. This moral/legal prohibition insures that an individual's liberty cannot be restricted in any way without his consent.

Thus we see two important features of libertarianism. First, the primary purpose of negative general rights is the protection of individual liberty, to insure that no one's life is restricted without his consent. Or as Nozick puts it: "Side constraints [which are equivalent to negative general rights] upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they cannot be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent.... [These constraints] reflect the fact of our separate existences. They reflect the fact that no moral balancing act can take place among us."4 Secondly, the libertarian holds that a sufficient reason to reject any alleged moral rule or principle of distributive justice is that rule or principle restricts someone's freedom without his consent. Hayek, for example, argues that we should reject plans to expand governmental roles since such expansion necessarily undermines individual liberty.5 And Nozick's primary objection to Rawls is that Rawls's two principles restrict individual liberty without consent.

Libertarianism, though morally austere, has a certain plausibility. Each of us wants to be able to live his own life, to be free from the unnecessary interference of others. We want, in Kant's words, to be ends in ourselves and not mere means for others.6 But just because a theory is plausible does not mean that it is correct. Libertarianism, I think, can be shown to be mistaken. I will argue that negative general rights fail to protect individual liberty the way the libertarian suggests. Since the protection of liberty is the express purpose of these libertarian rights, the theory fails. My argument will also show that even the libertarian must hold that one should not reject a moral rule or principle of distributive justice simply because it permits (or requires) non-consensual limitations on freedom. Once this failure is exposed there appears to be no good reason for denying that there are at least some positive general duties and probably some positive general rights. How many and how extensive these duties or rights are is another question.

medicinal Reviewed by medicinal on 01-15-2007. Libertarians, ??? Why Libertarianism Is Mistaken" by Hugh LaFollette In John Arthur and William Shaw (eds) Justice and Economic Distribution, 1979, 194-206. Taxing the income of some people to provide goods or services to others, even those with urgent needs, is unjust. It is a violation of the wage earner's rights, a restriction of his freedom. At least that is what the libertarian tells us. I disagree. Not all redistribution of income is unjust; or so I shall argue. Rating: 5

[darkside]

i fail to see where you disproved the libertarian philosophy. frankly i fail to see your point. do explain.

[medicinal]

i fail to see where you disproved the libertarian philosophy. frankly i fail to see your point. do explain.
__________________My point is that under libertarian rule, people are free to exploit the less fortunate without consequenses. Libertarianism is all about I, Me, and fuck everyone else. If you believe you should live your life without consequenses, then the libertarian lifestyle is for you. Just be aware that a bigger dog may come along and shit on your parade without consequenses, it is a no holds barred climb to the top and fuck everyone under you, kinda like it is in the corporate world only in life also!

[mrdevious]

i fail to see where you disproved the libertarian philosophy. frankly i fail to see your point. do explain.


I agree that taking any philosophy to such extremes can always be detrimental, but ALL political ideologies have their drawbacks when employed through such black and white terms. I find myself agreeing with a good deal of libertarian philosophy, or perhapse just the philosophies of its followers. Anti-socialist advocates such as Bong30 would undoubtedly like the concept of not using personal funds to support the public as a whole, but from my side of the political spectrum I think some degree of socialism is necessary. In my opinion, a society is strongest, if only morally, when we act in a somewhat tribal family stucture that advocates mutual protection. I believe that humanity, ultimately, must reach a state where we all work for the common good of human kind as a whole to reach a culture and way of life that's ideal and balanced. Otherwise, while capitalist and conservative ideologies may be efficient for the time being, they ultimately will not lead to a more balanced and accountable human condition. This is the main drawback I see with libertarianism.

[Psycho4Bud]

No matter what the party is a person has to have a bit of independent thought. I can't see where anyone could agree with ALL the positions of any certain party.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[mrdevious]

No matter what the party is a person has to have a bit of independent thought. I can't see where anyone could agree with ALL the positions of any certain party.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Now that's the smartest thing said on these forums. Thank you Psycho4Bud:jointsmile:

[medicinal]

No matter what the party is a person has to have a bit of independent thought. I can't see where anyone could agree with ALL the positions of any certain party.

I think thats a given even in dictatorships, (maybe not north Korea where they blare propaganda through the only radio station allowed, boy that must be one boring place to live) but the human spirit is always searching for freedom. No individual, well most I've known anyway, likes to have his thoughts programed by any outside influences. We as intellects, like to sort out the info coming in and make our own judgements. The thought police are gathering as we speak. I watched a discovery channel presentation of what they thought the world would be like in 2057, Not my cup of tea, I did like the flying cars though!

[Psycho4Bud]

No matter what the party is a person has to have a bit of independent thought. I can't see where anyone could agree with ALL the positions of any certain party.

I think thats a given even in dictatorships, (maybe not north Korea where they blare propaganda through the only radio station allowed, boy that must be one boring place to live) but the human spirit is always searching for freedom. No individual, well most I've known anyway, likes to have his thoughts programed by any outside influences. We as intellects, like to sort out the info coming in and make our own judgements. The thought police are gathering as we speak. I watched a discovery channel presentation of what they thought the world would be like in 2057, Not my cup of tea, I did like the flying cars though!

I watched the same show and feel the same as you! GPS medical trackers in our clothing, the medical care was a joke! LOL.......when the main computor was crashing the authorities were freaking out. Ya have to remember how to do for yourself.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

Individual Rights and Civil Order
No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.


Freedom and Responsibility
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.


Crime
The appropriate way to suppress crime is through consistent and impartial enforcement of laws that protect individual rights.


Victimless Crimes
Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.


The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world.


Safeguards for the Criminally Accused
Until such time as persons are proved guilty of crimes, they should be accorded full respect for their individual rights.


Justice for the Individual
We support restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer. We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.


Juries
We favor all-volunteer juries and urge the assertion of the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


Individual Sovereignty
We favor an immediate end to the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity" which ignores the primacy of the individual, and holds that the State may not be held accountable for its actions.


Government and Mental Health
We oppose the involuntary treatment for mental health by health officials or law enforcement.


Freedom of Communication
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of individuals to dissent from government.


Freedom of Religion
We defend the rights of individuals to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.


The Right to Property
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.


The Right to Privacy
The individual's rights to privacy, property, and to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government.


Government Secrecy
We condemn the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have.


Internal Security
The defense of the country requires that we counter threats to domestic security; however, we call for repeal of legislation that violates individual rights under the color of national security.


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
We affirm the right to keep and bear arms and oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition.


Conscription and the Military
We oppose any form of compulsory national service.


Immigration
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country.


Freedom of Association and Government Discrimination
Individual rights should not be denied or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by government.


Women's Rights and Abortion
Individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.


Families and Children
We believe that families are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion, and that parents have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.


Sexual Rights
We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.


American Indian Rights
American Indians should be free to determine their own system of governance and should have their property rights restored.


Trade and the Economy
The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.

The Economy
Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American.


Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.


Inflation and Depression
Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.


Finance and Capital Investment
Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures.


Government Debt
We support a constitutional amendment requiring government budgets be balanced by cutting expenditures and not by raising taxes.


Monopolies
Government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. We advocate a strict separation of business and State.


Subsidies
The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We oppose all government subsidies.


Trade Barriers
Tariffs and quotas give special treatment to favored special interests and diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals.


Public Utilities
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges. The right to offer services on the market should not be curtailed by law.


Unions and Collective Bargaining
We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.


Domestic Ills
Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government.

Energy
We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.


Pollution
Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.


Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation.


Education
We advocate the complete separation of education and State.


Population
The American people are not a collective national resource. We oppose all coercive measures for population control.


Transportation
We support transit competition and deregulation.


Poverty and Unemployment
We support the repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment. The proper source of aid to the poor is voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.


Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We advocate a complete separation of medicine and State.


Resource Use
Resource management is properly the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water, and other natural resources.


Agriculture
Farmers and consumers alike should be free from the meddling and counterproductive measures of the federal government -- free to grow, sell, and buy what they want.


Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
We call for the repeal of OSHA, which denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee and interferes in private contractual relations.


Social Security
Replace the fraudulent, bankrupt Social Security system with a private, voluntary system.


Postal Service
We propose allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.


Civil Service
The Civil Service system entrenches a permanent and growing bureaucracy and is inherently a system of concealed patronage.


Election Laws
We call for an end to government control of political parties, consistent with First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and propose electoral systems that are more representative.


Secession
We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals.


Foreign Affairs
The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel.

Diplomatic Policy


Negotiations
The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations.


International Travel and Foreign Investments
We call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk.


Human Rights
We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights against governments or political and revolutionary groups.


World Government
We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.


Military

Military Policy
Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect.


Presidential War Powers
We favor limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime.


Economic Policy

Foreign Aid
We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations.


International Money
We favor withdrawal of the United States from all international money and credit schemes, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.


Unowned Resources
Individuals have the right to homestead unowned resources, both within the jurisdictions of national governments and within unclaimed territory.


International Relations

Colonialism
We favor immediate self-determination for all people living in colonial dependencies and the termination of subsidization of them at taxpayers' expense.


Foreign Intervention
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions.


Space Exploration
We oppose all government restrictions upon voluntary, peaceful use of outer space.

Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

Check it out and see where you stand!

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[medicinal]

I can agree with about 70% of their ideas, but some go too far. A compromise between this hypothesis and a socialistic venue would float my boat. I liked the part about limiting the presidential powers and allowing us to keep our guns. Here's a clue to all you hipsters, Don't register all your guns, keep a few unknown (Bought from private individuals) in case the confistication begins.