Libertarian sub-groups
I first wrote about a “libertarian taxonomy” back in 2003 when I drew a distinction between (1) rights-based v utilitarian libertarians (2) anarchists v minarchists v moderate libertarians; and (3) isolationist v pro-war libertarians. I still think that analysis is helpful, but in the context of the modern Australian libertarian movement I think there is perhaps an more simple distinction between three broad groups.
For sake of argument, I call these groups the radicals, moderates and right-wing. My point in identifying these different groups is not to create a battle between them, but to try and explain the broader movement and perhaps help to build bridges between the different groups by helping them to understand each other better.
Right-wing libertarians generally came from a right-wing background (and probably still call themselves right-wing) but have moved away from the more paternalistic and socially restrictive elements of conservativism. They are generally strongly pro-America and pro-Israel and are more likely to have supported the Iraq war and to hold negative views about Islam and immigration. They would probably vote for the Republicans in America and generally the coalition in Australia. They have a strong dislike for the left, are strong supporters of the free-market, support shooters rights and enjoy reading Tim Blair and Mark Steyn. The best example I can think of for Australia is Tex.
Moderate libertarians don’t necessarily call themselves libertarian and may refer to themselves as “classical liberals” or “small-l liberals” or even “centrists”. They may have come from either a moderate left-wing or moderate right-wing background but found themselves a bit too liberal for either, frustrated with the social conservativism of the right and the economic intervention of the left. They are more likely to look for a compromise or pragmatic position on any issue, would probably accept a larger government than either the right-wing or radical libertarians (though smaller than non-libertarians) and are more willing to take left-wing arguments seriously. They are probably swinging voters. The best examples I can think of for Australia are Jason Soon and Andrew Norton.
Radical libertarians are the cliche libertarians who self-identify as libertarians and have swallowed the whole (or at least, most) of the libertarian story. They reject the Republicans and Democrats and Coalition and Labor and might not even vote. This group generally opposes all government action except for the bare minimum of a skeleton police force and courts… and some would go the extra step to anarchy. This group will seem the most “wacky” to non-libertarians and might be seen as extremists promoting no laws, near-pacifism and totally free markets. This group includes people like Mark Hill and myself.
Of course, these are generalisations, and as we all know — “every generalisation is wrong”. However, I believe they accurately show some of the different mind-sets that exist within the libertarian community. These groups won’t always get along… but I think it is important to remember that the differences between libertarians are small compared to the differences between us and the statists who promote maintaining the current bloated government or increasing it’s role.
UPDATE 7/5/2007: Montana Liberty Project applies my catagories to America: “A good assessment, that. The American versions (in my view): RwL, Instapundit; ML, Classical Values and The Liberty Papers; RL, CATO, von Mises, Hit and Run.”
100 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
John Humphreys on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
DanD on Animals, Morality, and Margina… jc on Minimum wages frozen jc on Minimum wages frozen DanD on Liberal budget response: tax … DanD on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… DanD on Queensland Fuel Rebate John Humphreys on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
Hand up for the right…
Pretty spot-on, except I never supported social conservatism of any stripe.
Elijah can’t help but remind me of religion. I hadn’t thought about the Australian sub-groups and possible religions… but at a guess I would say:
right-wing libertarian = serious christian
moderate libertarian = nominal christian but doesn’t care
radical libertarian = agnostic/athiest/satanist
LOL. Pretty much true, except I ain’t a serious Christian.
Why re-invent the wheel?
Fundamentally correct assessment.
The funny thing is I actually score pretty high on both the ALS political quiz and Bryan Kaplan’s Libertarian Purity Test (though probably not as high as you, I expect, John). Maybe because none of those quizzes have questions about guns?
I use libertarian as a default term to describe my beliefs some of the time because there isn’t a better word but basically I am a socially liberal free-market oriented economist who believes there is a role for government beyond the bare essentials (law and defence) but nonetheless
(i) there is scope for it to be much, much smaller than it currently is
(ii) there are systemic tendencies for it to get too big all the time and therefore erring on the side of encouraging it to shrink in order for correct for this tendency is a good idea.
I started off in the Labor party but during my student days party labels were pretty useless as there were Young Libs on my campus who actually believed in free education whereas I wanted HECS increased to cover the full cost of a university degree.
Also I’m pretty pro-US alliance and pro-Israel myself and am for a strong defence and a realpolitik foreign policy – that’s the extent of my conservative side.
These groups won’t always get along… but I think it is important to remember that the differences between libertarians are small compared to the differences between us and the statists who promote maintaining the current bloated government or increasing it’s role.
I forgot to say “Amen” to that……
It’s certainly worth trying to try to understand shades of libertarian thinking in Australia and this analysis is interesting, but I’m not sure it is an improvement on the previous effort.
For example, by implication right-wing libertarians are the only ones who are pro America, pro Israel and pro Iraq war. Radicals and moderates are impliedly none of these. I don’t think that’s accurate.
On those three issues the isolationist versus pro-war distinction seems more relevant, although being pro-war is really just an outcome of non-isolationism. A better distinction might be isolationist versus globalist. The latter favour the promotion of liberty in other countries, while the former limit their promotion of liberty to within Australia (using tax money at least).
Similarly, the rights-based versus utilitarian distinction seems more applicable to a range of social issues than the right/moderate/radical distinctions. For example, a rights based argument leads to support for liberal gun laws even among non-shooters (eg John H, Terje, Mark Hill) while a utilitarian perspective can lead to support for gun control based on personal feelings (eg Jason Soon). The same applies to gay marriage – the rights based view results in no state limitations, the utilitarian view could result in a state-granted right (ie Hobbesian) depending on personal perceptions of what it means for traditional marriage or child adoption.
The description of radical libertarians also implies this group is least pragmatic in political terms, yet both John H and Mark Hill are politically pragmatic while some moderate libertarians are not. I think radical libertarians are also invariably rights-based rather than utilitarian.
Having said that, I prefer most shades of libertarian to statists and socialists, whatever their rationale.
Soon, you are basically not a libertarian.
“the bare essentials (law and defence)”
These are the hulking great edifices of the state. You can only be truly a libertarian when these are done away with. These are humanity’s major stumbling blocks rather than bare essentials. Fundamentally, they close markets, allow the powerful to plunder the weak (see Australian history) and destroy the environment for both the aggressors and the assaulted (see Israel detonating experimental undepleted uranium weapons only 1km from its own border with Lebanon) .
“Also I’m pretty pro-US alliance and pro-Israel myself and am for a strong defence and a realpolitik foreign policy – that’s the extent of my conservative side.”
You might aswell say you are not a libertarian because these two states are psychopathically fascist (beyond conservative) with huge state apparatus to support their military, in fact civilian life takes second place within these societies. Just because they are not quite as homophobic as muslim states does not make them liberal.
“You might aswell say you are not a libertarian because these two states are psychopathically fascist (beyond conservative)”
Do you actually believe the stuff you write, parkos? Or is this performance art?
You are quick off the blocks this evening Soony.. Watch out thorpedo!
Well you know what annoys me about the femo peace movement so-called leftists in Belgium is that they protest the nuclear submarines at Faslane in Scotland whilst ignoring France’s relatively large arsenal. The French nukes are nearer to them and potentially defending their ass as opposed to pointing at their well shaped asses with yoga pants and dreadlocks hanging over them.
You did ask for performance art!
Do your pranayama breathing exercises on the Maharishi yogi interweb..
Applied eco-libertarianism:
My stock tip for today is Australian owned Uranium Resources UK..
http://www.uraniumresources.co.uk
They recently hit a rich seam in Tanzania.
Labels are fun but also problematic. However I will indulge the idea for a moment and describe myself. I think I am:-
1. mostly
2. an incrementalist
3. utilitarian
4. radical libertarian.
A radical libertarian because I think we would be better off without income tax and government funded welfare. A radical libertarian because I think we would should privatise or mutualise all hospitals, educational institutions etc even though the vast majority of people think these things are within the proper sphere of government involvement.
Utilitarian essentially because I would be willing to ban or prohibit a thing if there was a significant and substantial improvement in utility. Being mindful however that the precedent of banning one thing opens up a precedent for banning all manner of other things. It happens that my own calculus of the benefit of banning most things, be they guns, drugs or low wage work leads me to believe that very few things should be banned. Contrary to what David Leyonhjelm asserts I don’t arrive at my conclusions about guns with indifference to the consequences. I would ban guns if I thought such a ban had signficant utility. It just happens that I don’t believe it does have significant utility plus I hate to see minorities getting picked on using weak arguments. It also happens that I believe that it is only through arguments about utility that there will ever be political progress on such issues.
I am an incrementalist because I think that people and processes and cultures need time to accomodate changes. I would like to move incrementally towards smaller government. Unfortunately we are moving in the other direction so sometimes my rhetoric will exude a sense of urgency that may on occasion make people believe I want to abolish public funding of medicine and education and all manner of government services in one sitting of parliament. In practice I am interested in pathways and in finding staged reform where each stage of the reform is bold enough to deliver benefits but not so radical as to leave masses of people stranded.
Finally I say “mostly” because no philosophy of life is ever complete and no insight ever without flaws. We are inexact and imperfect beings that can only see and know so much about our world. And also “mostly” because there are things like public parks and footpaths and beaches that I have no interest in privatising. There should be a public sphere within our regional communities about which democratic decision making should apply.
Great idea John, after the gun control debate it’s probably a great idea to do a little navel gazing to cool things, and allow us to get a better idea of where each other are coming from. I hope this leads to greater understanding and respect, as we appear to be a prickly lot.
As a rights based libertarian, I find difficulty in believing that anyone could be libertarian, and not be rights based. I also find it difficult to accept that anyone could be a libertarian, yet think it’s OK to take firearms from the law abiding, because somebody else may abuse that right. While saying this I have to admit that I have respected most of Jason’s writing, and still do.
He definitely seems to support most of our principles.
Australian libertarians suffer from a low profile. I assume that low numbers is the main reason for this. I only discovered you guys by following links from the US LP; I had noticed the name of the LDP before this, however I assumed it was a socialist party. Names can be deceiving.
Diversity is great as long as we can hold it together at election time.
Categories are difficult thing to define in human thinking, and while I don’t consider myself “right wing” I mostly fit into your definition of that. I disagree on some of the assumptions made however. While I accept that Israel has a right to exist, and to defend that existence, I personally have little time for them, as I feel that their own arrogance and intransigence is at the core of many of their difficulties.
Whatever happened to the Anarcho-Capitalist label? This would be at home near your Radical types, except they’d sell off the few vestiges of the state that you’d keep. The Vonmises.blog site has them in droves. (I think it invented them)
An Anarcho-Capitalist sounds like someone who sells bombs to anarchists, but it actually refers to capitalists who want to do away with the state (hence, ‘anarchy’). This is the closest word that describes me. I prefer CoMonarchist, because I think we should all have the same rights as monarchs, and our lands would become our states. Any other words out there?
Contrary to what David Leyonhjelm asserts I don’t arrive at my conclusions about guns with indifference to the consequences. I would ban guns if I thought such a ban had signficant utility.
I didn’t assert that. I said, “a rights based argument leads to support for liberal gun laws even among non-shooters”. Nobody ever ever ignores the utilitarian aspects, it’s just a matter of which you apply first. Some people follow principles first, some work back from the end result.
Utilitarian and consequentialist reasoning reminds me of a very old and revered vet name Hugh Gordon who, in a different context, referred to Gordon’s law of causality. Translated, it simply meant “one thing leads to another”.
I also find it difficult to accept that anyone could be a libertarian, yet think it’s OK to take firearms from the law abiding, because somebody else may abuse that right.
I share that view, which raises the question of what is a libertarian. Is someone who basically supports John Howard’s Liberals but believes they could reduce taxes and be a bit less interventionist a libertarian or classical liberal? I think we might need an extra category or two if the answer is yes.
Terje — privatise the footpaths you commie bastard…
nicholas — I mentioned anarchists within the radical sub-group.
Sinclair — I’m not re-inventing the wheel… I’m inventing the Australian version of the wheel. Same same, but different.
DavidL — I didn’t mean to imply that moderates/radicals didn’t support the US/Israel… just that they have different priorities. And I support gun rights and gay marriage mostly on utilitarian grounds. While rights-based arguments help to inform my null hypothesis (ie a presumption of freedom) I am mostly interested in utilitarian arguments of benefits/costs. In my opinion, there is no utilitarian benefit from strict government regulation of guns, gays, drugs, sex, trade, death, life, fuel, alcohol, gambling etc. I am increasingly convinced that despite their protestations to the contrary, most people care about both rights-based and utilitarian arguments so it’s not a useful distinction.
“Cliché” “whacky” etc…thanks John.
Many of the economic arguments contrary to the level of Government intervention I would support are in themselves whacky, clichéd and use silly circular reasoning and sleight of hand tricks. e.g tax cuts cause inflation. This passes for “esteemed” economic advice. It is simply hare brained.
I’d shut up if a utilitarian case could be made for anything, like as “Strawman” would say, you know, “land rights for gay whales”.
“I think we would should privatise or mutualise all hospitals, educational institutions etc even though the vast majority of people think these things are within the proper sphere of government involvement.”
Stick with this Terje, I am right behind you; remember that if the government had traditionally provided fuel, and you tried to privatise it, you would run into solid resistance. Even the average guy standing in the que with his jerry can and ration card, would tell you how such an action would lead to shortages, and chaos.
I am increasingly convinced that despite their protestations to the contrary, most people care about both rights-based and utilitarian arguments so it’s not a useful distinction.
I don’t disagree, but as I said above it’s a matter of which you apply first. Some work backwards from an outcome they prefer and then look for a principle to justify it. Others work forward from a principle, then use utilitarian analysis as a reality check.
I fall firmly in the latter camp based on firm opposition to coercion. That’s defined as 1. to restrain or dominate by force 2. to compel to an act or choice 3. to achieve by force or threat
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coercing
I am willing to go wherever that leads unless there is a strong contrary argument. While I strongly disapprove of most drug taking, for example, I nonetheless favour decriminalisation. I am no fan of gay lifestyles but I don’t think it’s any business of the government. This has nothing to do with economic costs and benefits; non-coercion, or liberty, is often sufficient utility in itself.
Some twat on Catallaxy asked me whether I would approve of howitzers being privately owned. Consistent with the non-coercion principle, I replied that I would. (In fact, deactivated howitzers are already privately owned.) However, non-coercion also applies to what people do to each other so my answer was based on the assumption that the owner of a howitzer should not use it coercively.
You can really get a sense of this by tuning into the political debate in other countries and regions or in other times and places. Things that are openingly accepted in Australia today are hotly disputed in other times and places. I think fear of the unkown and fear of change are big factors. In essense the true sense of the word “conservative” has a big pull on human thinking. As the saying goes “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”.
p.s. You don’t earn peoples trust by speaking dismissively of their fears. You earn their trust by helping them to overcome their fears.
DavidL — the issue of backward reasoning, while very real, is not relevant to the distinction between rights-based and utilitarian arguments. These are different issues. I have ignored the “backward reasoning” category entirely from both this and my previous taxonomy as it’s not a real approach to political philosophy.
Both the rights-based and utilitarian arguments start with principles and then follow rational thought to the conclusion. They just start with different principles (ie freedom is the only good, utility is the only good). In reality I think people recognise the value of both and accept the occasional trade-off.
From what you wrote it seems like you are a good example of this — you start with a presumption for freedom (because liberty matters) but then you are willing to accept utilitarian arguments to see if there could possibly be a justification for government action. I think this is the correct approach.
Both the rights-based and utilitarian arguments start with principles and then follow rational thought to the conclusion. They just start with different principles (ie freedom is the only good, utility is the only good).
Aside from cost-benefit, which I don’t think you could call a principle anyway, what is the principle in utility?
My concern with utility is that it is simply someone’s version of the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus there is no rock on which it is founded. Libertarians who rely on utility are competing to have their version prevail over those who think a benevolent state is more utilitarian. Others might argue that the best outcomes would be achieved if everyone converted to a particular religion.
When liberty is the principle, that problem generally does not arise. Something either promotes or reduces liberty.
Something either promotes utility (benefits > costs) or reduces utility (costs > benefits). The fact that some people disagree doesn’t change that.
The principle of utilitarian political philosophy is that the government should do what maximising totaly utility.
The rock on which utilitarian analysis is founded is reason. There is quite an extended and detailed science that deals with utilitarian analysis of public policy: Economics.
I can see no value in denying utilitarian arguments. At the end of the day, nearly everybody on earth cares about consequences. If there are any purely rights-based libertarians they are unlikely to convince anybody of anything because most of the world cares about outcomes.
Terje
I was not speaking dismissively of their fears. I was simply providing an example of the type of thinking behind resistance to privatisation. People used to state provided services, would be fearful of those basics going into private hands. If for example you offered to privatise health care, many would be afraid of long waiting lists for services.
Earning their trust by helping them overcome their fears is quite logical, and in any privatisation move it is the way I would go. There is a big difference between speaking among ourselves at this venue, and actually discussing the subject in front of a concerned public.
John
Isn’t “backward reasoning” just a technical term for “the ends justify the means”.
Jim — no. Backward reasoning means you start with your conclution (e.g. assuming God exists, or assuming the government should ban drugs, or Iraq war was good etc) and then looking for any justification that fits.
Such a justification could be utilitarian or rights-based or mystical or anything. As the conclusion is already fixed, if one of the justifications are shown to be wrong then the person just switches to a new justification.
In contrast, “the ends justifies the means” quite obviously IS concerned with justifiction (hence the use of the word “justifies” in the sentence). The point of “ends justifies means” is that the consequence of an action are so good that it is acceptable to use an otherwise inappropriate method.
For example, if there was a sign on private property saying “do not trespass” but an unaccompanied baby in that property was drowning in 10 inches of water then most people would consider it appropriate to violate the property rights to save the baby. David Friedman (son of Milt and utilitarian anarcho-capitalist) gives plenty of other examples in his excellent book: Machinery of Freedom.
Lots of ‘isms, and ‘its in here. No wonder I stayed away from Liberal Arts. I’m just too laconic for that crap.
The principle of utilitarian political philosophy is that the government should do what maximising totaly utility.
The rock on which utilitarian analysis is founded is reason. There is quite an extended and detailed science that deals with utilitarian analysis of public policy: Economics.
Reason is fine but it needs to be applied in the context of values. Ayn Rand says that value is self interest. Others would argue it should be collective interest.
My concern is that you don’t necessarily end up with a libertarian conclusion through utilitarian reasoning without applying the principle of a presumption of freedom. Economics is no help in the case of pornography, free speech, same sex marriages, voluntary euthanasia, etc unless you artificially ascribe a value to things that don’t lend themselves to valuation. McNeill and Leigh did that when they cited Abelson (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111%2F1475-4932.00087), ascribing a value of $2.5 million for a life. That sort of thing gives non-economists the creeps and is no more convincing to most people than a purely rights-based argument (which I agree is not often persuasive by itself).
David
Economists, including me, implicitly apply the ‘presumption of freedom’ to everything because the alternative is far more costly. The opposite presumption involves the costs involved in regulating and prohibiting, possible perverse incentives, etc. There is hardly anything which economics in this sense isn’t applicable to, including ‘pornography, free speech, same sex marriages, voluntary euthanasia’. The first underlying principle of economics is that mutually beneficial trade is utility-enhancing. Then if externalities come into play which lead to effects detracting from utility in other ways, these must also have to be taken into account, Depending on how these costs and benefits are weighed, there may or may not be a case for regulation or prohibition. Most economists end up with libertarian conclusions on most things as a result though not all – in that sense their libertarian conclusions are not predetermined but they are generally on the libertarian side of things. This may be different where controversial goods and services are involved like drugs and guns depending on how you weigh particular factors.
Yes, this includes gun control and I know you diagree with me on this. But I’d appreciate it if you characterised my position on gun control as ‘wrong’ rather than based on ‘personal feelings’as you put it at your comment of 5:02 pm but then I have not come to expect too much from you.
Believe it or not, reasonable people can actually diagree on gun control even though both start from the presumption of freedom and I did start from the presumption of freedom on this.
“My concern is that you don’t necessarily end up with a libertarian conclusion through utilitarian reasoning without applying the principle of a presumption of freedom.”
And this is supposed to be a problem? If you already know what your conclusions are why bother going through the reasoning?
This is why there is a certain element of religosity to some libertarians.
As I’ve already argued anyway, a presumption of freedom doesn’t guarantee you come up with a libertarian conclusion anyway.
John
“The principle of utilitarian political philosophy is that the government should do what maximising totaly utility.”
As you have explained it, I have little argument with utilitarianism, however as a rights based libertarian I believe that in any such process, the principle of non-coercion should be an overriding factor.
If the conclusion being worked backward from involves coercion or the resultant conclusion requires coercion then it is irrelevant how many libertarian principles are invoked along the way, it is not libertarian. I probably sound a bit inflexible here, but the ability of a person to sometimes come up with a libertarian conclusion, does not make him one.
Paul Keating did odd things that I approved of, but I never felt the desire to embrace him as a libertarian brother in arms.
Where reasonable compromise is involved, there is room for utility, for example the original Queensland gun laws. A license was required but all that was needed to get one was a police check, and a test to ensure competence in firearm safety. The firearms themselves were not required to be registered.
As there was minimum inconvenience, with the payback of knowing that people with guns were safe to operate them, I was prepared to delegate that right to the state, especially as the law was formulated in consultation with firearm owners. I am very much against idiots with guns.
I do not mean to disparage anyone here with the above comments, or infer that they are not libertarian. I merely believe that a rights base is a safety factor, in being one without being something of a loose cannon.
Just an afterthought: If all you utilitarians consistently come up with libertarian conclusions, you are probably secretly harboring a belief in natural rights anyhow.
Go on deny it.
Sorry Jim. My comment about dismissing fears was not aimed at you or in fact anybody in particular. I was making a general observation about persuasion, probably for my own sake as much as anything else. Even before you responded I realised on reflection that it may have read as a criticism of somebody when it fact it was merely a passing mental note.
DavidL — the “value” in economics was already identified: utility. Self-interest isn’t a goal of political philosophy — it’s an inevitable part of human nature. The trick of political philosophy is to find the best system that harnesses human behaviour to create the best outcome. The free market does this because with a system based on private property, contracts and free trade, self-interested behaviour will lead to maximising the public good.
I agree that utilitarian reasoning doesn’t necessarily end up with a libertarian conclusion. But my goal isn’t to find a pre-existing conclusion, but to follow logic where it takes me. It just so happens that I believe utilitarian arguments result in a libertarian position. That is why I became a libertarian.
Economics does help with pornography, free speech, same sex marriage, voluntary euthanasia etc. Economic arguments were central to debates about the end of slavery (and earned economics the title of “the dismal science” by the pro-slavery group). Not only can we apply the simple notion that voluntary behaviour will necessary benefit both parties to the transaction and that people pursue their own ends… but it is possible to find the values of things even if they’re not traded. I agree that many non-economists find it hard to understand the concept of a value on life, but the concept is sound. We all make quality-quantity of life trade-offs all the time.
Economics also has lessons for crime, marriage, traffic accidents, discrimination and many other areas. This is because economics is NOT about money. It is about decisions and utility.
Jim — I don’t believe you when you say non-cercion must be an overriding factor. I’m sure I could think of dozens of examples were you would accept the violation of freedom because the outcome is sufficiently important. Indeed, you accept the previous Qld gun laws, which were obviously enforced only through the threat of violence.
As for what makes somebody a libertarian — in my opinion somebody is libertarian if they believe in a significantly smaller government. Most people have “blind spots” (not meant in a derogitory way) but I can’t see the value of denouncing people as un-libertarian or arguing about who is the biggest libertarian. We all know it’s me anyway.
As for “secretly harboring a belief in natural rights”… it’s not a secret. All other things being equal (including utility), I believe that people should be free. That is why I hold a presumption for freedom. As I state above, I believe that most people care both about freedom and utility.
Well I did say I was prepared to compromise. I still stand by what I said about non – coercion, but where the issue has mitigating factors as stated above, that is to say, where I am prepared to allow the state to exercise certain powers on my behalf, no right is violated, and benefits are in excess of the inconvenience, I will compromise as long as my natural rights are not infringed.
As gun safety is an important issue, and accedently shooting someone is a clear violation of their rights, and as I was unable to educate every gun owner on safety, I was prepared to allow the state to do it, just as I allow them to do my crime prevention for me.
The commonwealth laws on the other hand are draconian, and a clear violation of my principles, as they restrict the ability of the average person to posess a firearm. There can be no right for the state to require people to justify their reasons for wishing to own a gun, all they need to know is that that person is safe to use it, and are not violent criminals, or insane.
John; if you have the money to buy a gun and wish to get one, just because you like the feel of it, why should you be prevented from doing so. You wont get a licence for this purpose, and that is wrong.
I did not denounce anybody, and made a point of saying so: -
“I do not mean to disparage anyone here with the above comments, or infer that they are not libertarian. I merely BELIEVE that a rights base is a safety factor, in being one without being something of a loose cannon”.
That is a belief, not a criticism.
Actually, I hang with Libertarian Republicans in the states a
lot, so who is the biggest libertarian is not an issue with me. We tend to be flexible to the point, where both Libertarians and strongly libertarian leaning Republicans join forces,to get the right people in.
Perhaps some of these misunderstandings can be avoided in future when I learn how to put the smily face in my comments.
Terje
No offence taken. I thought you were having a shot at me because of the placement. There was no appology needed.
I will compromise as long as my natural rights are not infringed.
I agree with that.
It appears to me that one of the things that distinguishes principle based libertarians from utility based libertarians is the acceptance of natural rights.
That’s another reason why I see principle versus utility as a better basis for taxonomy among libertarians than attitudes towards the US, Israel or Iraq, or the other suggested factors.
And if economics can determine the utility of gay marriage, another basis for taxonomy might be economists and non-economists.
What interests me is synchronicity- I mention my new label of Comonarchism, and one of the Sunday papers has a small article about a Principality of Wy, in Mosman! A man has declared his estate to now be a separate state. some dispute with the local council, which escalated. His is now calling himself Prince Paul.
And did anyone else notice the paper which mentioned how fire-arm crime has grown in recent years?
Another Libertarian point- watch Catalyst! Last Thursday it mentioned an idea that every home in Australia should be utilising solar Power panels, and selling power to the national grid! More libertarian ideas are permeating the system from everywhere!
What is libertarian about saying I should have solar panels on my roof? At the current cost there is no way I should have solar panels on my roof.
Terje
I wanted to say the first bit of that, but I would argue against the “should” part, But I guess thats good enough.
You guys are up late tonight. I will have to give it away now as my teenage daughter is criticising me for the time I spend on the net. The boot is supposed to be on the other foot. Gnight Yall.
Catalyst simply mentioned this as an idea, but I was pleased that a show on the ABC was prepared to talk about libertarian concepts like this. At present costs, you might decide to not use solar panels, but the show was talking about the future.
Jim — you didn’t make sense. You said “I will compromise as long as my natural rights are not infringed” but the example you gave was an example of your compromising when natural rights were infringed. Our natural right is the right to do what we like with what we own without anybody using violence/coercion to prevent us. You accept that the government can enforce certain gun laws, and the way they enforce them is by using coercion. Under a fully natural-rights system if I want to buy a gun without a government licence I should be able to.
I agree with your position here… but it clearly shows that you obviously do think that consequences matter and if the consequences are important enough then you’re willing to accept a restriction on freedom. This is fairly obvious when you consider many examples — such as my “saving the baby on a no trespass property” example, or David Friedman’s example of breaking into a car to get a rifle to shoot a person who was about to kill 100 people. There are literally thousands of other examples in the literature.
I can’t understand why anybody would want to pretend that they don’t care about the consequences of public policy. Of course you do. And so you should.
DavidL — First, it’s wrong to draw a distinction between “principle” and “utility-based”. Maximising utility is just as much a principle as maximising freedom.
Second, the vaste majority of people care about both. It seems very likely that you and Jim (despite your protestations) also take into consideration the consequences of policy before you make up your minds. But even if you two don’t, most people do. Further, most people don’t even understand the distinction properly (e.g. confusing utilitarianism with backward reasoning) and certainly don’t build up their philosophy by thinking about these issues. That is why I no longer believe it is a very helpful tool for categorising people.
As for including “economist v non-economist” I would guess that many radicals would be economists (or at least quite economically literate). Moderates would probably have a good mix of economists and non-economists and right-wing libertarians would be less likely to be an economist and more likely to be an engineer or army officer.
Nicholas – suggesting that we should put solar panels on our roof is not a libertarian concept. Just as me suggesting that you try sugar in your tea would not be a libertarian, socialist or fascist concept. If governments were mandating that we put solar panels on our roof or sugar in our tea then we may have something libertarian to say on these issues. In the mean time have as much sugar and as many solar panels as you want. I’ll be having neither.
As for including “economist v non-economist” I would guess that many radicals would be economists (or at least quite economically literate). Moderates would probably have a good mix of economists and non-economists and right-wing libertarians would be less likely to be an economist and more likely to be an engineer or army officer.
Now you’re talking. Were the socialists to ever take power and lock up all the radicals, they’d just need to round up the economics graduates
As long as they didn’t look for the law graduates as well.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Frederic Bastiat
I work in a mine. I frequently handle explosives, I occasionally use them. Before I was allowed to do this my employer ensured that I was in fact competent, and reliable to do that properly. This was not an infringement of my natural rights.
I drill into old workings against water heads of hundreds of metres. Before I could do this I had to prove that I could do it safely, my design for the system had to be checked for safety by engineers. This is not an infringement of my natural rights.
Other drillers may dewater workings where the known head is below 50 m but not above that. This is not an infringement of their natural rights.
These rules were put in place by my employer, not the government, for safety reasons so as to avoid high accident rates and hence, higher insurance premiums, and a wish not to kill people.
The state now mandates some of these, but that’s a different story. There would be little point in railing against something I already agree to as part of my employment.
John, the reason that I do not make sense to you is that you are knit picking. I have said before, and I will say again that I am prepared to compromise. I am not, and do not wish to be, one of the inflexible fundamentalist libertarians, who are probably anarchists in fact.
That is to say, that before I accept a new proposition, I examine it from the angle of my rights, then decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs, then decide. Rights are always part of my considerations. To not do this puts your libertarianism at risk; it does not extinguish it, as with good will you will probably come out with an acceptable conclusion anyway.
The Queensland government did, The Australian Government didn’t.
My reasoning on the acceptance of the fact of gun laws, and my agreement to the Queensland ones is that we live in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Australia, and I have to take into account, that freedom is a nebulous concept here but believe that with compromise, reasoning and negotiation a better result might be achieved.
When I have more time, I will write something to explain how these issues would be handled in the Sovereign State of Libertaria.
I take the view that I can be a principled libertarian and still work within the current system.
John; I hope that you can accept this, as I can’t explain it much slower, or in much simpler terms..
Terje, what about if I put sugar on my roof?
Terje, the show made the libertarian point that if you made power at home, such as by having solar panels, then you should be able TO SELL power to the grid, if you wanted to! Making money is one of the things that I like!!! The only reason I haven’t got my own mint is because start-up costs are too expensive!
AND I don’t have sugar in my tea or coffee, because I’m too sweet as it is!
I prefer the labels pragmatists (classical liberals, moderates) versus idealists (anarchists or radicals).
Take guns – if banning them reduces crime, then we should ban them. If it doesn’t, then they should be available to all.
There is a correlation between freedom and standard of living. this would impy to me that freedom works. Hence i am pro-freedom. But if you could produce conclusive evidence that freedom doesnt work, i would be a statist.
Does that make me a Soonist?
John; I regret that last remark, it was beneath me, and I appologise for it.
Apology accepted & no hard feelings. Sorry if I can sound harsh… it’s not out of angst, it’s just that I sometimes forget the virtues of nuance.
The Bastiat quote is a good one and I agree with it. But it’s not relevant to our discussion.
I agree that your work contract isn’t an infringement of natural rights. There was no violence or coercion. You voluntarily entered a free contract. This also isn’t relevant to our discussion.
But if the government forces you to do something (against your voluntarily will by using violence or coercion) then that is a different issue. That is a violation of your freedom (ie natural rights). This IS relevant to our discussion because you have said (several times, I agree) that you would compromise as long as your natural rights aren’t removed… and then you go on to give examples were you’ll compromise even when your natural rights are removed. This issue was worth clarifying.
I absolutely agree with the approach you outline here: “before I accept a new proposition, I examine it from the angle of my rights, then decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs, then decide.”
That is exactly what I do, and what I think is right, and is what I thought you did. It proves my point that natural rights are NOT the only criteria for most libertarians (including you) and therefore the “natural rights v utility” distinction doesn’t actually help us to dintinguish.
I honestly don’t mean this to be rude, but I think part of this disagreement may have come from you not fully understanding the concept of “utilitarianism” and the political philosophy dichotomy between deontelogical (natural rights) and consequentialist (benefits & costs) morality. That’s reasonable. Most people don’t build up their philosophy that way and aren’t interested in these abstract terms. That is why I instead chose to draw my distinction on the basis of instincts and natural groupings.
John – I agree that most people don’t build up their political philosophy in the manner you have outlined. I certainly didn’t. However I think the deconstruction you offer is very useful and I value the insight. It certainly helps to clarify the thinking process. Or rather the thinking about thinking process.
Jim – If you owned the mine and you owned the explosives and you were working alone in the mine do you think it is your natural right to be as careful or as reckless as you see fit?
“That is exactly what I do, and what I think is right, and is what I thought you did. It proves my point that natural rights are NOT the only criteria for most libertarians (including you) and therefore the “natural rights v utility” distinction doesn’t actually help us to distinguish.”
John;
If this is the case what the hell have we been arguing about? I guess I should have stayed out of this as it has resulted in doing something I promised myself I would never do, get involved in a war of words over matters of little relevance.
I didn’t quite know what I was getting into when I said: -
“I hope this leads to greater understanding and respect, as we appear to be a prickly lot.”
In the main I tend to agree with most ideas that come up here, in fact at the moment I cant think of anything I have issues with any of you about, unless you include this, but I don’t consider this to be an issue, it’s just an matter of terminology, and technicality.
After all I did say; “as with good will you will probably come out with an acceptable conclusion anyway.”
Terje;
Jim – If you owned the mine and you owned the explosives and you were working alone in the mine do you think it is your natural right to be as careful or as reckless as you see fit?
I don’t quite know what you are looking for here or why. It reminds me of a sign one of my mates has; I AM AN EXPLOSIVES TECHNITION, IF YOU SEE ME RUNNING TRY TO KEEP UP.
Terje, reckless gets you killed, careful gets you killed less often. The fact is careful equates, not only with safety, but efficiency as well. Efficiency equates with good economics, to put it in your court.
I would be careful, I trust others to do the same, but if I work with others, I would expect them to be proven worthy of that trust and there be some guarantee that they have had proper training, or be properly supervised, otherwise I wouldn’t want to put my arse on the line down there.
I am very tolerant of drugs and alcohol for example, but I don’t tolerate anybody down there with either in him, it’s too big a risk
I think, in future I will stick to my usual blue-collar libertarian sites in the States, there don’t seem to be any here. I like to visit you occasionally to keep in touch with the scene here, but I think I will try to avoid commenting, I seem to burr you all up too much.
Once again I apologize for that remark, I feel very bad for having made it.
“Finally I say “mostly” because no philosophy of life is ever complete and no insight ever without flaws.”
I’m very glad to see someone say this. When I first encountered libertarians, I was taken aback by the lack of such humility and strident absolutism of many of them. Jason captures this:
“there is a certain element of religosity to some libertarians.”
Nah Jim… I don’t think you’ve “burred” us up and I hope you do keep commentating here. The earlier remark is already forgotten and it would be our loss if you left. Maybe you should become an ALS blogger to give us a bit more of the “blue-collar libertarian” feel and help make us a broader church?
Bloody oath we want Jim and anyone like us regardless of their background. We want every damned libertarian we can find to be in contact with us.
It’s great that the internet provides us a focus like this to enable the group to identify itself. Hopefully it will also enable us to focus our actions more effectively to achieve desirable change. What all three groups have in common is an agreement that we could lop off or phase out fifty, and maybe eighty, percent of the current behemoth of government.
I didn’t even used to know the word libertarian existed, and used to call myself a ‘Lockean’. I first saw the word libertarian reading P.J. O’Rourke, very funny American satirist. His book All the Trouble in the World – The Lighter Side of Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death is a great libertarian primer – a funny and incisive look at the disasters of governmental meddling around the world.
As I have read more from the Mises website, I come to accept the arguments that all the defects of government that the classical liberals recognise, inhere just as much in the institutions of government that they accept as those that they don’t. There is an excellent essay there today which encapsulates that view.
I first becaome intersted in libertarianism in 1995 or so after picking up this straonge looking magazine with a interesting looking story at a news stand. After reading it cover to cover I mailed out the annual subscription notice. It was Reason magazine.
I voted for Harry Browne for Prez in 1996. He said that the only government expenditure that would increase in his term of office would be the truck load of pens he would be using to sign vetoes and terminate laws and regulations. He would have made a great prez, pity the the rest of the population didn’t think so. But at least he got around 3% of the vote.
—-
There are two distinct schools of libertarianism as far as I can tell. There are the soft left leaning and conservative libertarian types. Soft left is very focused on civil rights issues while the prme focus of the right leaning types is economic.
Growing up in Australia the only non-immediate family we had here was my Norweigen grandads second cousin. She was called auntie and she had spent 20+ years as a missionary in China before being booted out during the cultural revolution. In my pre-school years she looked after me and my younger brother and I recall listening in wonder to the stories of how communism was forging a peoples paradise in China and that collectivism was going to create huge prosperity. Her aussie Husband was a member Of the ALP but had in earlier years been a card carrying member of the Australian Communist Party and a trade unionist. Dad on the other hand was self employed and took a different view of life. As such there was a constant political debate in our midst and it all seemed very important. As per the cliche I was a good communist be age 16. However as I got older my attemps at defending communism became futile because in the face of good arguments I stopped believing.
I didn’t know much about the word “libertarian” until I stumbled onto the earlier version of this blog. I remember being sworn at by John Humphreys early on in his pre “nuance” days. However the essential notions of libertarianism had all fallen into place in the early 1990s. I felt like the only economic rationalist in university and yet I was arguing in favour of the rights of homosexuals (often also against the same individuals). What crystalised most of my thinking however was the 5 years I spent on Jude Wanniskis website, sometimes in spite of Jude but frequently because of his writing. He posed some great questions about the essence of good governance. He was not a libertarian though, more of a statist who had discovered the virtues of small and light.
I agree with Justin that the Internet has been a fantastic enabler. Without a tournament in which to test ideas it is easy to hold onto shabby notions and half baked ideals. Without a tea room in which to discover compatriots it is hard to be emboldened. Without an outlet for energy it is likely that motivation would drain. The Internet is fermenting a sudden evolution.
There are two distinct schools of libertarianism as far as I can tell. There are the soft left leaning and conservative libertarian types. Soft left is very focused on civil rights issues while the prme focus of the right leaning types is economic.
JC, I reckon you might be on to something. So far John H (in this post and his prior one on this topic) hasn’t explained (to me) why libertarians differ. I’ve chewed this around for several days and I think John’s basis for taxonomy falters under closer analysis. Not that I have an obviously better alternative; I’m trying to understand it myself. Hence this rambling muse.
John’s post suggests there are three groups of libertarians identifiable by their attitudes to certain issues eg the US, Iraq, Israel and the main political parties. That might be an outcome of their differences, but it doesn’t explain why they exist in the first place.
I have explored the principle vs utilitarian distinction but it is also less than satisfactory. Frankly I don’t see how utilitarian/doentological/ consequentialist reasoning is based on principle. You need some other principle to determine what outcomes/ consequences you prefer.
Nonetheless, I can clearly identify two groups among libertarians – those whose primary focus is economic issues, and those whose primary focus is social issues. The former includes most of the economists, plus a few who worry about how much tax they pay, free trade or labour flexibility.
The latter tend to focus on a particular issue that motivates them – drugs, abortion, guns, gay rights, euthanasia, petty bureaucracy, the nanny state, etc.
The two groups will agree with each other on most things, at least to the extent that their particular focus coincides. I suspect it amounts to tolerance rather than agreement in some cases.
Where the basis for classification (or taxonomy) really lacks substance is in explaining the exceptions. Most libertarians have quite non-libertarian views on at least one or two issues and are quite cautious on others. Guns, gay marriage and drugs are common areas of difference. I also know plenty of social libertarians who are very wary of free trade, especially when implemented unilaterally.
As Billy Hughes famously said, “You have to draw the line somewhere.” The unanswered question, to me at least, is how to we define and understand where people draw the line?
Partly the reason is knowledge and reasoning. Gun rights supporters who are intolerant of gay rights, for example, will often change their mind when it is explained that they both rely on individual choice. Sukrit changed his mind on gun laws when he realised the onus of proof was on those who advocated a non-libertarian option and no such proof was available.
There is also a big problem applying libertarian thinking to relations between countries. A country is not an individual, so the concept of the self-owning individual does not apply. It’s not surprising, therefore, that we end up with a diverse range of views on Iraq, the US etc.
And that’s where I’ve ended up. I still don’t know whether I’m a conservative, radical or moderate and even if I did know, I don’t understand why.
Most ’social libertarians’ are leftists (except for the gun rights crowd). Aside from their pet issues they like big government. On the other hand, most economic libertarians are instinctively small government (except for the one or two exceptions) if only because they don’t see the efficiency of spending tax money on policies that don’t achieve their objectives or lead to worse results than those actually aimed at (all of which are of course empirical questions and cannot be determined a prior according to ’self ownership’ or other such metaphysical mumbo jumbo whether the issue be guns or drugs or euthanasia).
A so-called ’social libertarian’ who doesn’t believe in free trade is a socialist, period. If there were to be a litmus test I honestly cannot see how anyone can be a libertarian or a classical liberal who doesn’t get free trade because it means they don’t get the fundamental principle of mutually beneficial trade – aside from your usual quarantine or public health considerations which would be applicable in all cases anyway there is no good reason to treat differently a trade between a Newtown resident and a North Sydney resident from trade between an Australian resident and a resident of Japan. Basically anyone who is anti-trade or who believes that the government has a role in fixing the distribution of wealth and income (which in practice would mean controlling trades) can’t possibly be a liberal or libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
I roughly agree with JC’s two groups and think they cross over with two of the groups I mentioned. The group I added that he excluded is the radicals. These are fairly rare in Australia but are quite prominent among libertarian writers and American libertarians.
I think DavidL brings up a good point when he writes: “Where the basis for classification (or taxonomy) really lacks substance is in explaining the exceptions. Most libertarians have quite non-libertarian views on at least one or two issues and are quite cautious on others. Guns, gay marriage and drugs are common areas of difference.”
I disagree that this is a failure of the taxonomy. Indeed, this is perhaps exactly what the taxonomy was identified to summerise. Right-wingers sometimes trend away from the cliche libertarian position on issues of war, civil liberties, perhaps drugs, gays or immigration. Centrist libertarians are more likely to hold the libertarian line on these “social” issues but might shy away from the libertarian position on abolishing all welfare, gun laws and perhaps public health.
Personally, I was brought up as a right-wing nationalist protectionist. During university I shifted into the right-wing libertarian camp, but now I think I’ve moved over to the cliche libertarian camp. Personally, I noticed a shift in my mindset when I stopped identifying with the “right” and decided that my libertarian views were equally “anti-right & anti-left”.
I admit that my taxonomy doesn’t explain the reasons for the sub-groups. I do have theories on that (instincts, political background etc), but for the moment I thought it was more informative to just give a break-down of how I saw different people’s approaches.
I first arrived at ‘Libertarianism’ by a round-about path. I accepted the social atmosphere in which I grew up, as most people do, and was once very pro-Labour. Then, when Whitlam and his mob made a mess of our economy, I started thinking that Governments should be smaller. I found books written by Milton Friedman, and liked what I read. Then I started thinking, how small can you go? By how much could we reduce Government?
Well, what did we need governments for? To crack down on drug dealers, right? Maybe not…. if we want to reduce governments. Perhaps we should leave such choices to individuals?
Then I thought, could we reduce govt. taxes to zero? Surely taxes are a necessity- how else could the powers-that-bedazzle get the funds for whatever we want them to do?
Finally, I remembered going to the R.S.L. club for dances on Thursday evenings. The RSL owned the place, but let guests in, so long as they obeyed the rules. Guests could even become members, and decide on the rules! That has since become my model- Governments could own the roads, and other public spaces, and can set the rules only for such spaces, and ‘guests’ (civilians) can pay to become ‘members’ (citizens/taxpayers).
I then, in line with my new thinking about personal responsibility, changed my mind about drug dealers, and other free traders. In short, once I had a consistent base-line, I rearranged my moral code , and my viewpoints, around that.
That’s my version of minimal libertarianism, which is closest to anarcho-capitalism. The difference is I would change the governing set-up so that it was structured like a conpany (Public.com?), a company which owned the roads.
Basically anyone who is anti-trade or who believes that the government has a role in fixing the distribution of wealth and income (which in practice would mean controlling trades) can’t possibly be a liberal or libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
Jason gets hardcore radical! I like it!
Most ’social libertarians’ are leftists (except for the gun rights crowd). Aside from their pet issues they like big government.
Whatever it means these days, the term ‘leftist’ is not the same as big government.
My discussion was about classifying libertarians, not everyone who holds views on social issues that happen to correspond with libertarians. In my view, only those who have a general presumption in favour of freedom could be called libertarian. Those on the left who agree with certain libertarian social policies do so because they have a particular moral view of the world that they would like to impose on the rest of us. That’s different.
A so-called ’social libertarian’ who doesn’t believe in free trade is a socialist, period. … it means they don’t get the fundamental principle of mutually beneficial trade
For many non-economists, the obviousness of “mutually beneficial” is not apparent unless there is mutual lowering of trade barriers. That does not make them a socialist, it merely means they are not economists.
The question of trade between countries is another example of the difficulty of applying libertarian principles to international issues. Only when that trade is characterised as occurring between individuals are the principles readily applicable.
And if you think self-ownership is “metaphysical mumbo jumbo” while cost benefit analysis of voluntary euthanasia makes obvious sense, I suggest you mix with more non-economists.
David
Merely saying that rights exist isn’t an argument. It’s an assertion. Then going from rights exist to policy conclusions is called begging the question of why we should based policy on these asserted rights. That’s my point about metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I suspect most people here are atheists in which case I find it hard to work out on what basis they base their belief in natural rights and the claim that others should recognise such rights. i know Ayn Rand has tried to do it but I don’t find her justifications compelling.
John has already been through this with but I won’t divert the thread onto a meta-philosophy tangent.
If you think that mutually beneficial trade has something to do with mutually beneficial trade barriers or that trade between ‘countries’ is somehow conceptually different from trade between individuals, your so-called libertarianism is all mixed up, David.
DavidL supports free trade, so his libertarianism isn’t mixed up. I think he would happily admit that he isn’t an economist and so would probably accept that he may occasionally get his economic arguments mixed up — but it’s not compulsory to be an economist to be a libertarian.
But Jason is right that international trade is actually trade between people, not between governments. The governments only get involved by introducing restrictions… they aren’t involved in the trade.
There does not need to be one single taxonomy. The one suggested by JC and DavidL seems to make as much sense as any other and it’s interesting to see Jason then essentially adopt it.
The distinction DavidL draws between nations and individuals is important. It is in essence why I think low tax is more essential to prosperity and freedom than low trade barriers between nations. Taxation is a trade barrier between households and given the extent to which domestic trade swamps international trade then domestic levels of taxation are a far more significant factor. I don’t understand how some people can be in favour of free trade between nations and then advocate high domestic taxes. Both effect trade but the latter effects more trade than the former.
People do seem to strive for consistency (and there is a lot of social pressure to “be consistent”) so I think it is hard to adopt libertarian ideas and thinking in one area without it having an effect on thinking in other areas. This is essentially what David refers to in reference to shooters who want the freedom to own certain types of rifle and then translate that argument to sexual freedoms.
p.s. The services I get from government in return for my tax dollars are essentially the ones I would buy anyway (yes even much of the ABC). My hostility to high taxation is not based on a resentment of the burden of having to pay for things I use. My hostility stems from the impact it has on domestic trade and the inherent lost opportunities and prosperity. It’s essentially a patriotic hostility.
OK, fair enough, it sounded a bit as if David was hedging on free trade there but if he isn’t, he isn’t.
If you think that mutually beneficial trade has something to do with mutually beneficial trade barriers or that trade between ‘countries’ is somehow conceptually different from trade between individuals, your so-called libertarianism is all mixed up, David.
No Jason, I don’t think that and didn’t say it. My original comment was, “I also know plenty of social libertarians who are very wary of free trade, especially when implemented unilaterally.”
When I refer to the views of others, I am not one of those who is secretly talking about myself. I have also learned a bit about economics over the years but prefer to hide it in the company of opinionated economics professionals.
I’m not sure which right you think I asserted, but I agree I support natural rights. To do otherwise would require acceptance that rights derive from the state, which implies they can also be removed.
There is quite a good discussion of self ownership on Wikipedia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_ownership It’s neither mumbo nor jumbo.
John: Thanks for the link…great comments thread too.
John, and Mark,
Thank you for your comments and reassurance. I have felt something of an interloper, given my different emphasis, and coming down on the other side on some issues, (defence and so on). In this we are both correct in principle, it’s just that you people look at it more from an economic, non-interventionist perspective (I think), I see it from the right to defend liberty, even to the point of pre-emption.
I am more of a blue-collar libertarian, I see you people (How come there aren’t any chicks?) more as policy think tank sort of guys, and I don’t mean that in any derogatory manner. I think the movement needs both.
Thank you for the link, I didn’t expect that. You are of course all welcome over at “my place” any time.
I keep few links. This not because I don’t think much of others, I do, however I only link for special reasons, as follows:-
ALS. Good group therapy for Australian Libertarians.
Born Again Redneck Yogi. Really great plain language Libertarian, been there done that, and one of the true gentlemen of the world.
Bovination/Raving Wingnut. Great Australian blogs, and talk my language.
Libertarian Republican/Mainstream Libertarian. Eric Dondero”s sites, Best source of “out there” Libertarian news.
Terje. Can talk economics interestingly, without too many big words, the one I would recommend to people, (if the lazy bastard ever gets another post up).
The Catskill Commentator. Top source.
Terje isn’t lazy… he’s just a team player and keeps all his good posts for the ALS blog.
I hope he realises I was Joking
Logging in from Russia where I’m supposed to be writing my Austraian Tax Law assignment. Just wanted to say to Jim Fryar that we’re not all white collar – I’m a farmer and spend much of my day covered in shit.
Tomorrow – victory day parades. Because the Great Patriotic War ended a day later then WWII in Europe…
Tim
Bin there done that.
I actually said”policy think tank sort of guys”, not white collar. That is the impression I get of the group as a whole, not individual members. It has nothing to do with what we do for a living, it depends on emphasis. Anyone can be either.
Jim, what would you call a tank that sucks in water rather than delivers it? A sink-hole or something? That’s me. I’m the opposite of a think type kind of guy – I suck in ideas. Make yourself at home.
Jason,
I am an esoteric Christian, who thinks that a libertarian state would allow him to make moral choices, and exercise his moral muscles. The separation of Church and state, implicit in “Rend unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, is a christian ideal. If Church and State were one, then we would be enjoined to maximize the Church-state, and dissent would be blasphemy.
As it is, Christianity and freedom can coincide. Why do you assume that most libertarians are atheists, as you wrote above? (Point 66)
On religion, you would think Taoism would be the religion of choice of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. ‘Masterful inactivity’ was Lao-tzu’s formula for government. Rothbard actually names the early Taoists as the first libertarians. Lao-Tzu reiterates the theme that the best thing government can do is keep out of it, because it will only fuck things up worse if it even tries.
Taoism is in fact non-theistic, and is more of a nature philosophy than a religion. This is more suitable to libertarianism which is actually something of a nature philosophy itself. For example, the belief in complex spontaneous order arising from individual pursuit of self-interest meeting environmental restrainers, is more similar to evolutionary biology than to religion.
On the other hand Marxism, and therefore much of socialism, has many characteristics in common with the Christian religion, for example, the idea that the believers speak from a position of moral superiority based on authority; the abnegation of individual desires for a greater good; their belief in miracles (the creation of value out of nothing by government – as witness the wonderment of the multitude at Peter Costello’s servings of magic pudding); the resistance to disproof: preference of faith over evidence; and the idea that coercion is justified in order to convert and compel others to comply with their opinions. Marxism even contained a belief in an eternal happiness in an afterlife: the changeless happy state after the end of history starting with the proletarian revolution. This vapid belief in a will-o-the-wisp has been transmogrified into the modern-day Malthusians fervour for ‘ecological sustainability’, a kind of changeless happy state of moral superiority which requires only a little mortification of the flesh to get there LOL.
David, Thanks.
Tim, back to you,
I was a farmer when I met Libertarianism, over 30 years ago. I had been watching a group called the Workers Party, which was libertarian but didn’t appeal. There was some kind of internal upheaval, and it disintergrated, and the Progress Party was formed and I joined it immediately.
I have done the “think tank” thing, both in the formulation of policy and selling it. We had fair success, (around 10% in some elecorates on a number of occasions). As I said we need both good policies, and good selling.
If we sell well enough, we don’t have to win, the others will pinch our best policies and implement them, which is the best of both worlds as we get what we want and none of us have to be politicians.
This is a good debating club and we can talk however we like to each other, as we are speaking to the converted. I think we would be very lucky though to draw in the guy who accedently gets in here. To sell we have to talk mainstream to the mainstream.
The thing that killed the Workers Party was I gather a sort of arrogance that created the situation where, people who were looking for our principles like I was were attracted to read more, but the guy who wasn’t sure what he wanted, wasen’t given much encouragement to stay and find out more. Sort of “like us or piss off”.
Terje had a good point when he said, “You don’t earn peoples trust by speaking dismissively of their fears. You earn their trust by helping them to overcome their fears.” We had an analogy, dealing with this and our approach to people, as follows.
A guy is standing at the top of a 50m cliff looking longingly down at the beach below. Telling him, “I am going to put you down there, could frighten him, asking him if he would like to see the path down there, would get a better response.
I was wrong when I drew the above distinction between me and them, the thing is that if we are to succeed, we must use all of our persuasive powers, in every venue we can to broaden our base. We need all sort of people, and use all of their persuasive skills.
Apart from pure philosophy there is another step in self identification. It is the the belief in the self-evident nature of the position. I have great sympathy and intellectual identification with the ‘Radical Libertarian’ position, I just don’t think that it is in anyway a practical political programme.
I want as much as possible of that programme, but if it means cutting a deal or finding a part that ’sells’ and leaving the rest for later then that is the price.
This begs for Sir Humphrey etc to try his salami tactics and to reduce the changes to the level of the cosmetic, but that is what politics is about, finding that which is possible and carrying it out. It will only be a radical process of transformation when major crisis loom and (screams from lewrockwell and mises aside) today isn’t the day the public thinks is the crisis.
The upside of the blogsphere is that people who are otherwise outside the mainstream feel that they have found others who hold similar opinions. The real test of whether this is a ‘good thing’ or just ghetto-ising is whether those who hold a general libertarian position can use the tool to inform outside the blogs.
There are major issues being played out at present – the Iraq conflict, infringements of liberty (including the Access Card, ID card and RealID – for Aust, UK and US). But the strong support from blogs is only dribbling out to the outside. Where is the portal for Libertarians that can perform as townhall does for Conservatives?
The real danger in this era of instant activism and single interest is that the Libertarians natural position of don’t bother me and I won’t bother you is becoming an invitation to drive over the top of those who don’t squeal.
A disheartening reality is that when I approach people to discuss the Access Card few can cope with discussions of liberty, freedom and non-interference, as the public discourse has stopped. The Australia Card debate in 1987 had plenty of reference to the old Common Law, Bill of Right etc. Such debates are actually now unintelligible for the bulk of the population. Unless those who hold individual liberty dear can start talking to the outside about these ideas the law and our societies will simply forget them , to their cost as well as ours.
As the modern day “Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est”
Access Card – No Way !
Jim, I have mentioned a few times that the ALS also needs to produce a magazine that we, the subscribers, can leave lying around, and thus let people know that there is such a group as the Australian Libertarian Society! As you said, we are all speaking to the converted here, except for a few strays who pick fights and leave. In what other ways could we increase knowledge of libertarianism?
I replied to Nicholas, but it seems to be lost in your system. could someone check.
Nicholas
Here are some ideas
You guys know how to put a bloke on the spot, don’t you?
One of the favourite methods employed by our opponents is to ignore us, so nobody knows about us.
I have long held a theory that if we were lucky enough to find ourselves up against, a party led by a really pompous, glass jawed, guy who is really up himself, and were to oppose him with someone who is really articulate, knows his shit, and wont back down, and have him deliberately provoke the other guy, then we could get lots of really good publicity free of charge.
Of course our guy would have to be able to keep his cool in the face of vicious attacks, act statesmanlike, and be as reasonable as all hell, preferably while sticking a few extra barbs into him.
I think the Labor Party may have given us this opportunity, if we are able to use it. The rest of us would have to give solid support, or we may end up looking silly. You people know each other, you would have some ideas, I don’t know you that well.
Blogs.
Coming in here cold wont work.
If anyone is able to create them based on suitable popular issues, argue along our philosophy, and gradually move people in our direction, say for a start refer them to something in more libertarian blogs, say Tex or Strawman when they have a suitable subject, (that could be arranged), we can eventually drove them here. If properly prepared they should find it good pasture; a gradualist approach.
Public meetings where we have the numbers to do it, worked for us back then.
Plenty of press releases, on “low hanging fruit” type subject matter, making sure we can be a bit controversial, to make those reporters want to follow up. Controversial does not mean going over the top.
Well there’s a few to chew on.
Jim, please check out the LDP. http://www.ldp.org.au
David
I assume that you were pointing me at “LDP in the News”. How do you do this? I mean, I guess it is easy to get random names to place on the list, But who are the big guys who “Encourage” those people tell the electoral commission they are obliging members, when they come a calling.
It sounds like Mr Bowen may have had a long lunch. I almost feel sorry for someone like that, who, when they think of a really good one to tell, have to cross their legs and hold it in, until they can get into the house and say it under parliamentary privilege.
Jim: I just wanted you to consider the LDP as a political party that corresponds with your views, or at least many of them. We are keen to increase Queensland members so we can get registered and enter the next state election.
Mr Bowen was just a bit of luck to get a bit of free publicity. We’ve had a few like that.
David: I am not sure why, but I have stood on the brink of joining a few times, but have stepped back. One of these days I will get too close and go over the edge. In the meantime, rest assured you have my full support.
I like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism
To describe neolibertarians, Dale Franks says this: [3]
When given a set of policy choices,
The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.
In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,
A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.
Putting a different spin on it, the website “Neo-Libertarian” says that neo-libertarianism: [4]
…means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It’s the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.
Moreover, it’s a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself ‘The Government’ cannot legitimately add to one’s natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it ‘The Border’ cannot legitimately subtract from one’s natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.
Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren’t the victim.
Those who identify as Right-Libertarianism might get something out of these sites. There are some gems in the blogs that I haven’t heard about before, although I suspect some of you will be familiar with them:
http://www.neolibertarian.net/
http://www.neolibertarian.net/blogs/
paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It’s the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.
I came across that distinction myself during this debate and found it useful. I think it explains why some people are happy with economic freedom but draw the line at more practical examples such as gun ownership or gay marriage. Economic freedom is much easier to theorise.
However, it does not explain why some people are neolibertarians to the extent that they get involved in political parties and elections, but paleolibertarians on foreign interventions like Iraq. Can the same person be both a neo and a paleo?
The terms “paleo” and “neo” have been around for a long time and they most certainly do not mean the difference between saying something and doing something. That is clearly a definition written by a neo-libertarian. I’m sure a definition written by a paleo-libertarian would be equally insulting to the neo side of the debate.
A “neo” libertarian is pretty much exactly what I described as a “right-wing” libertarian (and pro-war) while a “paleo” is pretty much exactly what I described as a “radical” (and anti-war). Both groups are involved in politics, though (as per my original distinction) some “radicals/paleos” are opposed to the idea of voting. Believing something like:
“Don’t vote… it just encourages them”
The problem with the neo/paleo tag is that while those groupings were originally intended to be broad (like “right-wing” and “radical”) they have come to be associated quite closely with just the few American groups that use those words regularly. Also, some people define “neo” as also meaning “moderate”, which I think adds to confusion vis-a-vis my three way taxonomy.
The problem with the neo/paleo tag is that … they have come to be associated quite closely with just the few American groups that use those words regularly.
The same is likely to happen with the radical and right-wing labels, which are based on differences over selected issues. If neo and paleo don’t signify a difference between saying and doing, perhaps we require terms that do. Or, as the neos put, between pragmatists and purists.
You can be quite pure in your libertarian philosophy (be it utiliatarian or natural rights) and still be pragmatic in your politics. There are lots of things I believe in very strongly which I see little value in pushing politically.
For an alternate discussion of political labels I thought the following was interesting, although it seems to come at things from a starting point quite different to my own and at times I judged aspects of it to be quite flawed:-
http://beyondrightandleft.com.au/archives/2005/09/beyond_right_an.html
Good recommend terje. Another interesting one worth reading:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-fall/decline-fall-american-conservatism.asp
Some of our discussion above, was related to selling the product. There is a guy who can and I think will do that, and I think we can all gain something from him. Wayne Allyn Root, Libertarian candidate for president.
Check out http://jimunro.blogspot.com/2007/05/wayne-allyn-root.html to see why, and use the link, or go direct to Root for America at;
http://www.rootforamerica.com/
This is not a sly attempt to get votes, (well 1 or 2 would ease my angst). Not really I vote for someone else.
Two American examples of radical libertarianism are Billy Beck (www.two–four.net/weblog.php) and Rich Nikoley (www.uncsense.com).
Always a good read.
Wayne Allyn Root’s credo. I love it.
“Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead it has turned against the people. Politicians and government bureaucrats of both parties want to impose their will and take control over every aspect of the lives of the American people. It’s time to turn the tables. I will fight on behalf of the people. I will defend the constitution. I will repeal laws, not create new ones. I will cut government, not grow it. I will find programs to terminate, not create new ones. The only power I will relish is the power of the veto. I love the smell of vetoes in the morning! I vow to veto more bills than any President in history.”