First off I use Libertarianism and Liberalism interchangably. Don't get too hung up on this, I use Liberalism in a literal sense, not that understood in the United States currently. In fact to make it easier on the eyes I'll just shorten them to Lib. deal? Criticism is encouraged I would appreciate if you gave it a proper read though. Libertarianism is unique. Other political ideologies want a certain outcome to be eventuated, while Lib. does not. Rather, instead of concerning itself with outcomes, Lib. is concerned with where such decisions should be made. Should they be made by governments, corporations, etc. Liberalism doesn't say "these policies are the right ones", it instead places the power to make those decisions with those who have the exclusive right to make such decisions. To better demonstrate this I'll use an example: roads. The left usually says that speed limits are too low while the right says they're too high. Libertarianism says neither. Instead, it says that government control of roads is the problem, and that in a just society firms would be able to build transportation networks (as they do now) and set their own speed limits. But wait, you say! Won't this just trade one arbitrary limit (set by the government) to another arbitrary limit (set by firms). Yes! But, the firm that builds a network out of its own pocket thus owns it and has the exclusive right to make decisions pertaining to it. Additionally, there exists competition. If you don't like firm A's speed limit then switch to firm B's. This is not possible where government monopoly is present, such as in economic and social policy. Extrapolate this sort of thinking to all policy and you have Libertarianism. It doesn't "want" an outcome (ie: more guns), it says that government isn't the proper place to make this decision (the individual is!). Individuals themselves can then choose whatever they want. The important thing to remember is that individuals don't have the right to anyone else's agreement. Such uniformity is only forced by government. I struggled for many years trying to find a political philosophy that wasn't just my opinion forced on others. Lib. was what resulted because it is essentially the absence of political philosophy, at least on a governmental scale. Thanks for reading! Please leave your opinion below
Um, yes it does: Self-governing people. Which I agree with, actually. What I don't agree with, is how libertarians seem to think that the only thing standing in the way of reaching that goal is the government. In my opinion the goal libertarians have is only reachable in baby steps in a period of many decades of time. Maybe at some point they'll be mature enough to realize that and agree to make compromises. Until then, they're just naive in my opinion.
I hate ideology in all its forms! When you already know the answer you are no longer thinking! I am a Libertarian until facts dictate otherwise. This makes me a pragmatic Libertarian, and i believe the difference between the belief in any political philosophy should be defined by its ideological or pragmatic application! In political terms, we may agree on the vast majority of things when speaking in specifics, but in no way do I see you as a superior Libertarian due to a dogmatic interpretation of the philosophy.
I thought the objective of libertarianism in practice was to implement the non-aggression principle. Is this incorrect? To play Devil's advocate, what if firm A is the only firm with a road going by ones home and instead of it being their speed limit that is disagreeable, it's an exorbitant fee they make one pay to use the road? Should a person have to choose between doing business with the firm that possesses a de-facto monopoly on roads and having to uproot their self and move to a different community where they would have to purchase new shelter, develop new habits and routines, procure new work, replace many of their old relationships and social networks, etc.? For most folks I imagine the only realistic answer would be the former - to just pay the owners whatever they demand. Thus the consumer can technically have freedom of choice on paper but little or no actionable freedom in practice. Do you have any thoughts on this? Individuals would also not have the right to whatever they want - just the right to compete with others for the privilege of accessing scarce opportunities and coming into private ownership of scare resources. A person could technically get very little of what they want if they are not able or are otherwise unsuccessful in their attempts to effectively compete against others - regardless of how hard or how cleverly they endeavor to succeed. Possession of capital or a relative lack thereof often conveys competitive advantages or disadvantages, respectively, to people whose conflicting pursuits of self-interest bring them into competition. Not having level playing fields on which to compete seems to imply the individual is not in complete control of their own welfare, which in turn raises an important question: are some people much freer in practice than are others? If so, is it possible many folks could be freer to make choices that affect the courses of their own lives when there is a "big government" than when there is not? I find this aspect of liberalism extremely attractive. Even though I have strong opinions about how things should be done, I can count on the institutions of a classical liberal government to only allow me to succeed in advancing my political agenda if a large majority of adult citizens consent. The system doesn't play favorites in settling political scores - it just lays out some really basic ground rules for what can and cannot be done for the sake of keeping the proper decision-making processes in place, and then leaves the People and the leaders they elect to fill in the blank spaces however they prefer within the aforementioned parameters. It is a thing of beauty, in my opinion, and maintaining the integrity of such a system is far more important to me than achieving the other tenets of my ideology ever will. I enjoyed reading your post and thought your perspective was well-presented. There are some questions rattling around in my head though, and it would be great to see what kind of responses you have to put them at peace. For example, would you say liberalism is innately tied to private ownership and capitalism or can proponents of mutualism, georgism, socialism, etc. be as well - assuming their attitudes are similarly determined to shift decision-making authority away from government and toward smaller organizations or the people directly as individuals instead?
