It often surprises me how libertarianism has been so effectively adopted by the ‘right-wing’ of politics.
David Boaz, the editor of ‘The Libertarian Reader’, describes Libertarianism’s concerns in this way:
“Constraining power is the great challenge for any political system. Libertarians have always put that challenge at the centre of their political and social analysis”.
So what is it about Libertarianism that is so necessarily right-wing? If we take as the central thesis of libertarianism the protection of individual freedom, then it seems to be that to best serve that freedom we should be committed to some notion of self-determination.
In fact, while libertarianism began as a theory concerned with protecting individual autonomy, as it developed the focus on a minimal state and free market capitalism it increasingly sacrificed that goal in the name of individual property rights.
One of the most influential modern right-libertarians is Robert Nozick. In his seminal book Anarchy, State, and Utopia Nozick set about to establish how, if at all, a state could emerge and function that truly protected individual rights and treated people as ends in themselves.
According to Nozick, taxing people on their earnings is such a violation of their rights that it is akin to aggressing against them:
“Taxation of earnings is on par with forced labor. Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours of labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose. Others find this claim absurd. But even these, if they object to forced labor, would oppose forcing unemployed hippies to work for the benefit of the needy”.
An important concern for Nozick is that others do not use individuals as a ‘means towards an end’: one ought not use another to support one’s own means by redistributing their property.
However, in order to justify property ownership in the first place Nozick relies on the premise that when one person acquires land or resources it is justified because they will use that land productively which will benefit all of society (basically the “trickle-down effect”). So in order to justify private property Nozick must rely on principles that he would reject in the case of taxation!
There are numerous other reasons why the right-libertarian total emphasis on property rights and protection from state power, but not private capital’s power, seems flawed: fundamentally, if we are concerned with protecting individual autonomy, it seems to me that that a mix of positive (freedom to do things) and negative (freedom from unjustified repression) freedom that is facilitated in by both the state and individuals would be most successful at serving this goal.
Amy is a Sydney-based journalist and commentator with an interest in politics, music, culture and evidence-based medicine.
She is currently working as a medical journalist for a series of "Specialist Update" websites, and she has also been published in The Sydney Morning Herald, Crikey, New Matilda, and Vibewire's anthology "Interface".
She was a panelist with the Sydney Writers' Festival in 2007 and 2008, organised the Sydney Writers' Festival event "erotic fan fiction" in 2009, and is a regular broadcaster on FBi radio.
Rothbard in the last chapter of his book Ethics of Liberty, strongly critiqued Nozick from a right-libertarian perspective (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp) saying it wasn’t consistent (as you point out), but did provide an alternative theory on which to base property rights in its stead.
Libertarianism isn’t “right-wing” or “left-wing”. It’s “anti-wing”.
You misunderstand the concept of property rights. Libertarians aren’t defined as people who believe in property rights; all political philosophies have property rights. All of them. Even the ones so stupid as to say they don’t have property rights. They have the exact same concept, but they just use a different word… and if semantics changed meaning then I really would be rich, handsome and immortal by now.
The only issue open for disagreement is how property rights should be transferred. Broadly speaking, there are two options — voluntary and involuntary. Libertarians are those people who have a strong preference for voluntary behaviour.
The difference between “state power” and “private power” is that state power comes through initiating force (ie it’s involuntary) while private power can only be achieved through influence (ie it’s voluntary). Note that I’m not saying all force is bad and all influence is good. Perhaps some violence is good sometimes if the consequences are worth it… and some influence can be bad if people are too naive. But this distinction is hugely important, and I think violence is worse than influence.
Finally, the “freedom to” concept is deeply flawed. It does not mean “freedom to do things”. The original “freedom from” concept already allows you to do anything you like, so long as it’s voluntary.
More correctly (and dramatically) explained, the concept means “freedom to initiative violence and force involuntary outcomes”. Yes, it might be good. But I think the language borders on being dishonest when they try to imply that such a “freedom” (sic) is part of the freedom of self-ownership and voluntary human interaction.
At it’s core, libertarianism is this… each human owns themselves and consequently the best way to interact with another human is voluntarily (except in extreme circumstances). Everything else flows logically from that starting point.
One can imagine I read it twice. While I am not as proficient on this subject, I tally with your conclusions because they create sense. Thanks and goodluck to you.