Libertarianism

Libertarianism is subject to a great deal of criticism from both progressive and conservative sources. Much of this criticism is directed at an abstract conception of what libertarianism is assumed to be, and as a consequence results in a fair amount of strawman arguments that provide little benefit. If one identifies as libertarian, he can expect to be told what he believes, usually along the lines of open borders, eliminating the social safety net, legalizing drugs, allowing persons to own artillery pieces, etc. These perceptions are caricatures of what libertarians are supposed to believe, and provide little insight into why someone might consider himself to be a libertarian, or what he might actually believe and why.

It is a virtual certainty that the spectrum of beliefs and ideas held by libertarians is very wide, as are the processes by which different individuals come to embrace libertarian values. It is not the case that all libertarians begin with the premise that all people should be free to do want they want, have no social obligations other than those that they adopt voluntarily, and others should have to fend for themselves. For many people libertarianism is something that they adopt through reason, rather than something they default to because of insular attitudes.

One basis of libertarian thought begins with the observation that consequences are unavoidable, and in most cases, natural. There are certain natural consequences that obtain from actions and decisions, apart from any abstract concerns such as fairness, equality or compassion. Nature does have a significant influence on human affairs, at all times and in all places, and this cannot be undone by ideology, wishful thinking, or emotionally appealing doctrines that are the modern descendants of magic. There are many phenomena that are simply part of the real world, i.e. facts. Such phenomena include the concept that specific expertise produces, on average, more efficiency that generalized competence, or that a businessman who regularly defrauds his customers will develop an unfavorable reputation, or that infants must be cared for during the first years of their lives. Because of this, libertarian thought, at least a particular version of it, makes a distinction between design and prescription. Designers must necessarily consider the processes and natural phenomena by which actions produce reactions, stimuli produce responses, and decisions result in outcomes, often unintended, unexpected and unwelcome. Prescribers, on the other hand, simply decree that outcome occur, and try to will it into happening despite human nature, history or the natural influences that affect human affairs. Prescribers tend to view the relationships between wants and outcomes the same way young children do and, not giving significant regard to the natural forces that intervene between the two, must inevitably resort to the use of force.

Aversion to prescriptive solutions for human problems is not only a reaction to the prospect of force and coercion that such solutions imply, but also results from historical evidence that such attempts do not work. They leave the vast majority of people worse off. The rejection of the use of force as the basis of producing particular outcomes is inherently libertarian. The libertarian aspect is not necessarily the rejection of the intended outcome, but rejection of the ineffective, dehumanizing and ultimately destructive means of attaining it.

The rejection of the use of force does not itself make for a libertarian world-view. As mentioned above, the libertarian understands that natural phenomena influence outcomes. There are two ways to view these phenomena, pessimistically or optimistically. The pessimistic view is that nature is essentially degenerative, that left on their own things will only get worse. The optimistic view is that nature, whether one wishes to consider it divine natural law, or a cosmic accident, contains within it the essentials of human progress and ultimately human happiness. Human choices affect whether nature allows humans to thrive, or decline. A libertarian view is the optimistic one, and moreover it is the constellation of individual human choices that result in human flourishing. This helps explain the libertarian affinity for individualism. Each individual has unique talents, needs, biases and opportunities that permit him or her, with sufficient liberty, to not only see to their own happiness, but to contribute to the general welfare. A libertarian view is that people are generally good, that on average, they do care about others, and that it is individual liberty, rather than social homogenization, that allows individuals and their wider societies to flourish. Libertarians understand that societies cannot prescribe the works of Beethoven, or the insights of Newton, or the creativity of Shakespeare. These are all the results of individual attributes that have to be allowed to flourish. The libertarian understands that these attributes, and these remarkable people, are part of nature and are much more likely to produce human flourishing and human happiness if they are given the liberty to do so.

Many libertarians do not reject, as they are often accused of doing, social responsibility. They understand that people should be respected regardless if their circumstances, and should not have to suffer from neglect. Libertarians however recognize that dependency not only results from vulnerability, it also creates it. Libertarians recognize that, just as the circumstances of those in need vary significantly, so do the appropriate responses to those needs. For this reason, libertarians are disposed to the notion of subsidiarity, that social responsibilities should be fulfilled at the lowest level of social organization possible. Many libertarians do not believe that there is no social responsibility to those in need, but recognize that half-baked and well-meaning programs imposed by detached authority are prone to unintended consequences that do more harm than good. As with the good of society in general, the welfare of the needy is best served, even of imperfectly, where individual rights and liberty flourish.

Libertarians generally recognize that human circumstances are determined largely by interactions between people and their environment. As a result, circumstances vary, and will always vary between different regions and different groups of people. The best way to accommodate these differences is to allow enough liberty for people to adapt, to do what is most beneficial in response to discrete and particular circumstances, rather than some some grand vision imposed by remote functionaries.

Libertarians believe what they do, because those beliefs are largely consistent with the nature of the world, and the dignity of the people within it.

The Vulnerable

There is a common claim in contemporary social and policy advocacy, and that is that society must look after "the most vulnerable" among us. It is an attractive proposition, loaded with compassion, and pathos, as well as proclaiming the selfless virtue of the declarant. The vulnerable, of course are due consideration, and compassion and protection, so those that stand up for the vulnerable risk little by their advocacy. There is however one trait that vulnerable people share that creates a dilemma for their protectors: people who are dependent are vulnerable. If nothing else, dependent people people are vulnerable to the loss of whatever it is that they are dependent on. True advocacy for the vulnerable therefore requires a vigorous opposition to dependency. It is simply inconsistent that a person or group of people be presented as vulnerable, with a subsequent demand that this vulnerability be addressed by programs that never go away because the vulnerable are thereby made moreso by self-perpetuating dependence.