Criticism of libertarianism

Last updated

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental and pragmatic concerns. With right-libertarianism, critics have argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, and that libertarianism's philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation fail to prevent the abuse of natural resources. [1] Criticism of left-libertarianism is instead mainly related to anarchism. Left and right-libertarians also engage in criticism of each other.

Contents

Ethical criticism

Aggression and coercion

The validity of right-libertarian notions of liberty and economic freedom have been questioned by critics such as Robert Lee Hale, who posits that laissez-faire capitalism is a system of aggressive coercion and restriction by property owners against others: [2]

Adam Smith's "obvious and simple system of natural liberty" is not a system of liberty at all, but a complicated network of restraints, imposed in part by individuals, but very largely by the government itself at the behest of others on the freedom of the "some". ... What in fact distinguishes this counterfeit system of "laissez-faire" (the market) from paternalism, is not the absence of restraint, but the absence of any conscious purpose of the part of the officials who administer the restraint, and of any responsibility or unanimity on the part of the numerous owners at whose discretion the restraint is administered.

Other critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness , argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism. [3] In response, libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms of the social contract theory. [4]

Authenticity of libertarian goals

Critics such as Corey Robin describe right-libertarianism as fundamentally a reactionary conservative ideology united with more traditional conservative thought and goals by a desire to enforce hierarchical power and social relations: [5]

Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose. Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.

Will Moyer, a former libertarian, thought that Anarchism was the full realization of libertarianism. Political libertarianism was a distorted version of the philosophy, appealing solely to people who admired libertarianism's feelings but lacked the principle to follow it to its logical (and moral) consequences. [6]

Property

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare", philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of right-libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state". Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires". He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties, saying that the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs".

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs". Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle", to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale. [7]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural-rights libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: [8]

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if ... the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. ... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."

Philosopher Jonathan Wolff criticizes deontological libertarianism as incoherent, writing that it is incapable of explaining why harm suffered by the losers in economic competition does not violate the principle of self-ownership and that its advocates must "dishonestly smuggle" consequentialist arguments into their reasoning to justify the institution of the free market. [9]

Robert Lee Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in right-libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions, but it is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own private property rights. [10]

Standards of well-being

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized right-libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life. [11]

Theory of liberty

J. C. Lester has argued that right-libertarianism has no explicit theory of liberty. [12] He supplies a theory of liberty, briefly summarized as the absence of imposed cost. Frederick [13] criticizes Lester for smuggling in concepts not specified in the theory. Lester [14] responded. Both Lester and Frederick are proponents of critical rationalism, the epistemological approach of Karl Popper. Lester has criticized libertarians for neglecting epistemology.

Economic criticism

Right-libertarians are accused of ignoring market failures, although not all proponents are market zealots. [15] [ unbalanced opinion? ]

Environmental criticism

Reconciliation of individual rights and the advances of a free market economy with environmental degradation is a problem that few right-libertarians have addressed. [16] Political scientist and author Charles Murray has written that stewardship is what private property owners do best. [16] Environmentalists on the left who support regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions, such as cap and trade, argue that many right-libertarians currently have no method of dealing with problems like environmental degradation and natural resource depletion because of their rejection of regulation and collective control. [11] They see natural resources as too difficult to privatize as well as legal responsibility for pollution or degrading biodiversity as too difficult to trace. [3] As a result, some see the rise of right-libertarianism as popular political philosophy as partially responsible for climate change. [1]

Right-libertarians are also criticized for ignoring observation and historical fact and instead focusing on an abstract ideal. [17] Imperfection is not accounted for, and they are axiomatically opposed to government initiatives to counter the effects of climate change.

Pragmatic criticism

Lack of contemporary examples

In 2013, Michael Lind observed that of the 195 countries in the world, none have fully actualized a society as advocated by right-libertarians: [18]

If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

Furthermore, Lind has criticized right-libertarianism as being incompatible with democracy and apologetic towards autocracy. [19] In response, right-libertarian Warren Redlich argues that the United States "was extremely libertarian from the founding until 1860, and still very libertarian until roughly 1930". [20]

Counter-criticism

Declan McCullagh, writing for Wired , argued that libertarianism "attracts the most strident criticism from those who understand it the least. Expending little or no effort on research, critics barely familiar with libertarian ideas concoct an unappetizing stew of ideas – anarchism, egoism, and plain selfishness and greed – and mistakenly dub it libertarianism." McCullagh further argues: [21]

Libertarianism is not about anarchy, utopia, or selfishness. Instead, libertarians simply are skeptical of 'nanny government,' and recognize the many ways state power has been abused in the past. They believe that government programs like health assistance, Social Security, foreign aid, and corporate welfare do more harm than good. They argue that everyone must be equal before the law, and everyone has human rights to personal security, to property, and to free speech that the government must protect, not violate.

Declan McCullagh

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anarcho-capitalism</span> Political philosophy and economic theory

Anarcho-capitalism is an anti-statist, libertarian political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, based on concepts such as the non-aggression principle, free markets and self-ownership. Anarcho-capitalist philosophy extends the concept of ownership to include control of private property as part of the self, and, in some cases, control of other people as private property. In the absence of statute, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of goods and services. In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society the system of private property would still exist, as it would be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by property owners, whose ownership rights or claims would be enforced by private defence agencies and/or insurance companies. These agencies or companies would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police, similar to a state apparatus. Some anarcho-capitalist authors have argued that slavery is compatible with anarcho-capitalist ideals.

Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gustave de Molinari</span> Belgian political economist and classical liberal theorist (1819–1912)

Gustave de Molinari was a Belgian political economist and French Liberal School theorist associated with French laissez-faire economists such as Frédéric Bastiat and Hippolyte Castille.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murray Rothbard</span> American economist (1926–1995)

Murray Newton Rothbard was an American economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, political theorist, and activist. Rothbard was a central figure in the 20th-century American libertarian movement, particularly its right-wing strands, and was a founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism. He wrote over twenty books on political theory, history, economics, and other subjects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Market economy</span> Type of economic system

A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution to the consumers are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lysander Spooner</span> American individualist anarchist (1808–1887)

Lysander Spooner was an American abolitionist, entrepreneur, lawyer, essayist, natural rights legal theorist, pamphletist, political philosopher, Unitarian and writer often associated with the Boston anarchist tradition.

Laissez-faire is a type of economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism. As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms: "the individual is the basic unit in society, i.e., the standard of measurement in social calculus; the individual has a natural right to freedom; and the physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system." The original phrase was laissez faire, laissez passer, with the second part meaning "let (things) pass". It is generally attributed to Vincent de Gournay.

Anarchist economics is the set of theories and practices of economic activity within the political philosophy of anarchism. Many anarchists are anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist, with anarchism usually referred to as a form of libertarian socialism, i.e. a stateless system of socialism. Anarchists support personal property and oppose capital concentration, interest, monopoly, private ownership of productive property such as the means of production, profit, rent, usury and wage slavery which are viewed as inherent to capitalism.

The nature of capitalism is criticized by left-wing anarchists, who reject hierarchy and advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations. Anarchism is generally defined as the libertarian philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful as well as opposing authoritarianism, illegitimate authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Capitalism is generally considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor, which have generally been opposed by most anarchists historically. Since capitalism is variously defined by sources and there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category, the designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-aggression principle</span> Core concept in libertarianism in the United States

The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, is the philosophical position that states that any person is permitted to do everything with his property except aggression, defined as the initiation of forceful action, which is in turn defined as 'the application or threat of' 'physical interference or fraud ', any of which without consent. The principle is also called the non-initiation of force. The principle incorporates universal enforceability.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing equality before the law and civil rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of Libertarianism. Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by liberal ideas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarianism in the United States</span> Origin, history and development of libertarianism in the United States

In the United States, libertarianism is a political philosophy promoting individual liberty. According to common meanings of conservatism and liberalism in the United States, libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom, often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Broadly, there are four principal traditions within libertarianism, namely the libertarianism that developed in the mid-20th century out of the revival tradition of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism associated with the New Deal; the libertarianism developed in the 1950s by anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who based it on the anti-New Deal Old Right and 19th-century libertarianism and American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting the labor theory of value in favor of Austrian School economics and the subjective theory of value; the libertarianism developed in the 1970s by Robert Nozick and founded in American and European classical liberal traditions; and the libertarianism associated with the Libertarian Party, which was founded in 1971, including politicians such as David Nolan and Ron Paul.

Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to property and income. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.

<i>For a New Liberty</i> 1973 book by Murray Rothbard

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto is a book by American economist and historian Murray Rothbard, in which the author promotes anarcho-capitalism. The work has been credited as an influence on modern libertarian thought and on part of the New Right.

Libertarianism is variously defined by sources as there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Scholars generally agree that libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Libertarian conservatism</span> Ideology combining conservatism with libertarianism

Libertarian conservatism, also referred to as conservative libertarianism and conservatarianism, is a political and social philosophy that combines conservatism and libertarianism, representing the libertarian wing of conservatism and vice versa.

Libertarian anarchism may refer to:

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to libertarianism:

Economic liberalism is a political and economic ideology that supports a market economy based on individualism and private property in the means of production. Adam Smith is considered one of the primary initial writers on economic liberalism, and his writing is generally regarded as representing the economic expression of 19th-century liberalism up until the Great Depression and rise of Keynesianism in the 20th century. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to feudalism and mercantilism.

References

  1. 1 2 Matthew, Schneider-Mayerson (2015-10-14). Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. Chicago. ISBN   978-0226285573. OCLC   922640625.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. Fried, Barbara (2009). The Progressive Assault on Laissez Faire: Robert Hale and the first law and economics movement. Harvard University Press. p. 50. ISBN   978-0674037304.
  3. 1 2 Partridge, Ernest (2004). "With Liberty and Justice for Some" Archived 2019-08-21 at the Wayback Machine . Michael Zimmerman, Baird Callicott, Karen Warren, Irene Klaver and John Clark. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology (4th ed.). ISBN   978-0131126954.
  4. Huemer, Michael (2013). The Problem of Political Authority.
  5. Robin, Corey (2011). The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin . Oxford University Press. pp.  15–16. ISBN   978-0199793747.
  6. Moyer, Will (14 June 2014). "Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology". Salon. Archived from the original on 12 December 2022. Retrieved 12 December 2022.
  7. Sterba, James P. (October 1994). "From Liberty to Welfare." Ethics (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell). 105 (1). pp. 237–241.
  8. Friedman, Jeffrey (1993). "What's Wrong with Libertarianism". Critical Review. 11 (3). p. 427.
  9. Wolff, Jonathan. "Libertarianism, Utility, and Economic Competition" (PDF). Virginia Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 January 2013.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. Bruenig, Matt (28 October 2013). "Libertarians Are Huge Fans of Economic Coercion" Archived 2013-11-01 at the Wayback Machine .
  11. 1 2 Friedman, Jeffrey (1993). "Politics or Scholarship?". Critical Review . 6 (2-3). pp. 429–445.
  12. Lester, J. C. (22 October 2017). "New-Paradigm Libertarianism: a Very Brief Explanation" Archived 2018-07-06 at the Wayback Machine . PhilPapers. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  13. Frederick, Danny. "A Critique of Lester's Account of Liberty" Archived 2023-04-04 at the Wayback Machine . PhilPapers. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  14. Lester, J. C. "A Reply to Frederick 2013: 'A Critique of Lester's Account of Liberty'" Archived 2020-10-28 at the Wayback Machine . SSRN. Retrieved 19 May 2020
  15. Brennan, Jason (2012). Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. OUP US. p. 63. ISBN   978-0199933914. Archived from the original on 8 February 2024. Retrieved 23 September 2017.
  16. 1 2 Bowers, C. A. (2005). "Understanding the Commons within the Context of Contemporary Ideologies". Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and Educational Sites of Resistance and Affirmation. Lexington Books. p. 135. ISBN   978-2511001516. Archived from the original on 4 April 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2017.
  17. Haworth, Alan (1994). Anti-libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy, and Myth. Psychology Press. p. 14. ISBN   0415082544. Archived from the original on 8 February 2024. Retrieved 23 September 2017.
  18. Lind, Michael (4 June 2013). "The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer" Archived 2013-06-25 at the Wayback Machine . Salon .
  19. Lind, Michael (30 August 2011). "Why libertarians apologize for autocracy". Archived from the original on 7 April 2019. Retrieved 17 February 2019.
  20. "Was America Ever Libertarian". Independent Political Report. 25 April 2017. Archived from the original on 6 October 2018. Retrieved 6 October 2018.
  21. McCullagh, Declan. "In Defense of Libertarianism". Wired. ISSN   1059-1028. Archived from the original on 2023-06-30. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

Further reading