Libertarianism shares with liberal egalitarianism a commitment to the principle of respect for people’s choices, but rejects the principle of ameliorating unequal circumstances. Taken to the extreme, this is not only intuitively unacceptable, but also self-defeating, for the failure to rectify disadvantageous circumstances can undermine the very values (eg. self-determination) that the principle of respect for choices is intended to promote. The libertarian denial that undeserved inequalities in circumstances gives rise to fatal moral flaws in the position.
Of course tis hardly does justice to the position and the contending arguments. But it might kick off some discussion I’d look forward to meeting in.
I disagree. Libertarianism is a philosophy based around freedom and liberty. There are always consiquences for errant behaviors, even in the ideal libertarian society.
Where do you get this? I think the exact opposite is true if anything. A smaller national government means the states would be deciding more laws for their areas.
I’m not talking about a “state” as in Washington or North Carolina. I’m talking about a State - a government. True libertarianism would mean the complete absence of government.
Strict Libertarianism is rarely if ever anarchism(anarcho-Capitalism being the exception), and all versions have constraints. it’s an ethical system after all… I have no idea what “true libertarianism” is though, but then again I’m not sure what place Aleister Crowley has in this discussion either.
Maybe “true libertarianism” is being defined as religious traditionalist libertarianism.
As for the OP, libertarianism with concerns of egalitarianism is leftist- libertarianism. They have a different take on economic constraints, instead of insuring the right to property, they claim property to be communal in a Lockean way. So there really is no contradiction.
Libertarianism condones allowing unequal circumstances, irrespective of how painful or intolerable the inequality may be. The attempts by libertarians to show that poverty, including sickness and disability, is not a restriction on freedom or self-ownership just reveal how weak their defence of absolute free market is.
And, by the way, libertarianism is not the absence of a state. It is a minimal state where rights follow property. A political “philosophy based on freedom and liberty” is one that ensures that wealth does not determine the welfare of the states subjects. Libertarianism exceeds the American Creed of rugged individualism. It is not only theoretically flawed, but in practice would lead to disastrous results. The underpriviledged, with no rights, would have no access to opportunities to acquire property with its attewndent rights, and would turn to illicit behaviors to gain redress. Wealthy immigrants could immediately acquire disproortionate power upon arrival. You could be subordinate to wealthy Saudi sheiks.
Try all you like to rationalize this perverse doctrine – callousness masquerading as a political prescription. But even a country as flawed as the US would not tolerate the imposition of such a regime. We are seeking ways to solve poverty abroad; we’re hardly likely to impose a system to invite it at home.
Unequal circumstances? I think they are for equality of all individuals. As I see it, people have unequal circumstances right now (not under a libertatian system).
How would there be seperate laws for each piece of property?
You need to get a book which has a chapter on libertarianism. It’s not as simple as “minimal government”. The arguments for and against it are quite intricate.
Under a libertarian regime, the one with the more prop-erty has more rights than the one with less. If you have no property, you have no rights, and are at the mercy of private charity. Someone with no property is powerless and cannot access opportunities that might lead to his gaining some wealth and rights. Libertarianism is a terrible system if you’re not wealthy. I’d hate to be sick and poor under such a system.
Another thought about libertarianism. In practice, the needy would receive charity from people with distinctly kind and ethically outstanding character. Most people would not even think of the disadvantaged. The result would be a disproportionate weight in the burden of charity would be carried by a small portion of the populace. The callous rich would be getting a cheap break, having their poor cared for at no cost to them. A good case for a tax on these cheapskates could be made.
The Libertarian tradition doesn’t claim that it is guaranteeing freedom in the idealized sense that Imp. employs. It is saying, these are the freedoms that we find important, and government should exist only to secure these freedoms. If government goes any further, it is impinging on the exact freedoms that it is supposed to protect. Anarcho-Capitalism is a special type though, it leaves the security of these freedoms in the hands of market Capitalism. It still thinks they should be secure, and that society ought to protect them, but it leaves the “how” up to private individuals. Left-Libertarianism differs also.
Internationalist Liberals are all about oppressing and being intolerant towards anything which they call the enemy of freedom, anything “restrictive”, anything that stands in the way of their own fundamentalism.
Obviously there are undeserved inequalities; for example physical characteristics, where you were born, whether you were born into a rich or poor family. But the only real solution to that problem is to adopt the lowest common denominator. You can’t make everyone rich, but you can sure as hell make everyone poor; you can’t make a cripple walk, but you can sure cripple someone who can.
Essentially, the “cure” for the problem of undeserved inequality is worse than the problem itself.
I would suggest everyone read the Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” for an idea of what I’m attempting to talk about.
I would say that Libertarians desire equality in general. Why would they want a person’t rights entrusted with property? That goes against what they are about (liberty).
You can’t convince me unless there is proof of this, and I have yet to see aything that states this about libertarians. Whatever you read was probably bunk.
If you want to get insulting, I can easily draw on the vacuity of your posts to conclude you have not only not read even “bunk” on libertarianism, but have probably just overheard others talking misinformed “bunk”. This is intricate political philosophy that takes some effort to grasp, and you obviously think you can grasp it a priori. WRONG! I’m far too selective to read “bunk”, but I do read enough of what will inform me to discuss a topic that interests me. Libertarianism is indiferent to fairness of wealth distribution. It seeks no government interference so that those capable of exploiting the free market can do so to their maximum benefit. An uneven result of market competition is of no concern to libertarians, and those successful in exploiting opportunities for the power and rights carry the rights. Libertarianjism is a doctrine that accepts inequality and is based on who has the property. Inequalities stemming from sickness or lack of opportunity are left to private charities, if such are forthcoming. If the sick are to starve, then everthing is fair game and the underpinnings of a system that allows it are shaken. Libertarianism can work in small communities, communes. It’s not a prescription for mass society.
No mass society can function with an underclass that is uncsared for. Libertarianism is a system suited for small, self-sustaining collectivities, where everyone is allotted a share of the commons and arrangement are made to utilities , policing, schools and so on. The global market is far too large and in need of regulation by way of treaties and world aid bodies to be left to run itself. Free trade means trade with lowered tariffs and less regulation. And a country with an unperforming underclass is at a disadvantage in terms of wasted human capital. Bringing its underclass to performance level brings more talent to its market forces.
Politics is the art of compromise, so said Barry Goldwater, or was it George McGovern? or both?. And we should not oppress the opposing view point, so said Mill.
Anyway, Libertarians have no real power; How many seats in Congress do they hold? They certainly have their flaws, but they have their good points as well. Example: Drug Prohibition. Libertarian groups like CATO Institute or Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine are the few that speak with logic on this issue.
They also have good ideas on things like limiting the power of the military, maintaining a right to privacy, rule of law, etc.
Their bad points are they don’t support good government services like parks and libraries. And their not the best when it comes to labor laws.
But, you can find pro’s and con’s with other groups as well, be they liberal or conservative.
Lex - I would point out here that even Rawls’ liberalism accepts inequalitites. Both his ideas and that of libertarianism, generally, are more concerned with the rules of the game than in ensuring that everyone wins.
Right, libertarianism condones allow unequal circumstances. And rightly so. There is only so much liberalism can do to change the world and make everybody equal. And there is an element of the world and its people that don’t want to be equal. Is liberalism suppose to declare war on that segment of the population to force equality and ameliorate things?
Perhaps we should go back to the classic meaning of liberalism. There is no mention of equality there but more the right to pursue one’s own self interest and to have governments that support and foster that right. Those aims should be liberalism’s aim and from those aims a sort of equality will arise, one that is honest and sustainable, not force or tenuous.
The world by nature is a contradictory and hypocritical place. Liberalism doesn’t deny that nature but tries to work with it and balance it rather than ignore it as its opposite tends to do, conservatism