Controversies within libertarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Controversies within libertarianism abound.
 |
The neutrality or factuality of this March 2006 may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements. |
Contents |
[edit] Consequences vs. rights
Milton Friedman defined consequentialist libertarianism as a philosophy that advocates "the least intrusive government consistent with the maximum freedom for each individual as long as he does not interfere with individuals pursuing their own freedom."[1] Where rights-theorist libertarians oppose all intrusion by government, if they support the existence of a state at all, consequentialists libertarians accept limited government interventions that they consider needed to maximize liberty. They support the levying of a limited amount of involuntary taxes to provide some public goods such as defense, law, and roads, as well as some minimal positive regulation (these are also sometimes called classical liberals). Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, believe that a free market can adequately provide these functions via private defense agencies, arbitration agencies, toll roads, and the like.
[edit] Capitalism
Most libertarians support deregulation and free trade because they believe that people should be able to start and grow businesses, manufacture, transport, trade, buy, and sell with little to no interference from the government. Some may support efforts to limit private monopolies. Some libertarians like Milton Friedman prefer market reforms like school vouchers to the status quo while others like Lew Rockwell see such programs as a threat to private industry and as a covert means of expanding government, and instead would abolish tax-funded schools altogether.[2]. Many left-libertarians define 'capitalism' in the Marxian sense of state capitalism, and therefore oppose it.
[edit] Taxation
Some libertarians believe that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)[3] allows no taxation at all or tax resistance,[4] while proponents of limited government might support low taxes, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providing public goods such as crime prevention.
[edit] Political alliances
Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues and gun laws (but for a libertarian defense of gun control [1], while they are more prone to ally with liberals on other social policies. Foreign policy is a hotly debated issue among libertarians, because most libertarians oppose wars, against conservative wishes, but also oppose the United Nations, against liberal wishes. Some ally with isolationist, religious paleoconservatives, despite sharp disagreement on economic and social issues. Others refuse to ally with any political party other than their own and will never vote for a mainstream candidate. Many voting libertarians typically will only vote for a candidate that is philosophically libertarian, a good example of which in the U.S. is congressman Ron Paul (TX-R-14). Those that choose to vote for whichever main party matches their goals and ideals are called small-l libertarians (l) or "philosophical libertarians" because they are more willing to compromise to advance individual liberty. In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, a few "small-l libertarians" advocated Howard Dean for President in the primaries because of his belief in gun rights and his moderate approval of free trade. Several philosophical libertarians voted for George W. Bush, fearing John Kerry would be even less in favor of free trade than Bush; and others voted for Bush because of the Republican party's claim to be the party of smaller government. Some philosophical libertarians voted for John Kerry, mostly as a protest vote against Bush, because of Bush's failure to restrain federal spending. A greater number of philosophical libertarians either abstained from voting entirely or voted for the 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, believing both major party choices in 2004 were opposed to fundamental Libertarian tenets.
[edit] Intellectual property
Some libertarians believe that property rights in ideas (and other intangibles) should be identical to property rights in physical goods, as they see both justified by natural rights. Others justify intellectual property for utilitarian reasons. They argue that intellectual property rights are required to maximize innovation. Still others believe that "intellectual property" is a euphemism for intellectual protectionism and should be abolished altogether.
[edit] Immigration
Libertarians of the Natural Law variety generally support freedom of movement, but other libertarians argue that open borders amount to legalized trespassing. The debate often centers on self-ownership of bodies and whether we have the freedom to hire anyone without the federal government's permission. Other times, the debate centers on immigrants abusing tax-funded government resources. "Consequentialist libertarians" may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy. Ideally for a libertarian, there would be minimal government involvement in various social programs, thus virtually no increased tax burden of immigration.
[edit] Abortion
A controversy is the role of the state in regulating abortion, if it is in fact unethical. In the United States, some on both sides of this debate agree that this should be settled by the states rather than the federal government, arguing that Roe v. Wade violated traditional state self-police powers. American libertarians who are not states-rights advocates, on the other hand, prefer for the issue to be settled at whatever level of government will reach the best decision. A significant number of libertarians (including many in the Mises Institute) view abortion to be an initiation of force against the fetus and therefore wrong, while other libertarians view the fetus's early stages of development to be under the control of the female or individual(s) bearing responsibility for its development. Some anarcho-capitalists, including Lew Rockwell and Joe Sobran, oppose both abortion and the centralizing Roe v. Wade decision.
[edit] Death penalty
Some libertarians support the death penalty on self-defense or retributive justice grounds. Others see it as an excessive abuse of state power. Many consitutionalist libertarians disavow the death penalty for its irreversible nature, as well as its perceived conflict with the Bill of Rights' ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."
[edit] Foreign intervention
Most libertarians oppose and are suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. Others (such as those influenced by Objectivism) argue that intervention is not unethical when a foreign government is abusing the rights of its citizens but whether a nation should intervene depends on its own self-interest. Libertarians advocating foreign intervention are typically known as "Liberventionists".
[edit] Gay rights
Libertarians believe that adults have a right to choose their own lifestyle or sexual preference, provided that such expression does not trample on the same freedom of other people to choose their own sexual preference or religious freedom. The philosophically pure libertarian answer is to treat all marriage contracts as legal contracts only, and to require that the terms of the marriage are spelled out clearly in the contract, allowing any number of legal adults to marry under any conditions that are legally enforceable, thus ending the implicit government-endorsement of all marriage contracts, including heterosexual ones. If the state no longer endorses only certain marriages as legitimate, there is no inequality; and gays, lesbians, polygamists, etc. can all draw up their own private legal contracts, just the same as heterosexuals could. Currently, the State assumes that heterosexuals who did not draw up pre-nuptial agreements entered into a commonly-recognized Christian ritual union that entitles the united parties to the use of the State's legal system as a means of filing a record of their marriage and of resolving disputes. Many libertarians advocate the concept that there can be no such thing as a just separation of people into differing status groups under the law, so the current definition of marriage must include all those who wish to marry, with the later goal of eliminating this increased role of government in marriage entirely.
[edit] Inheritance
Libertarians may disagree over what to do in absence of a will or contract in the event of death, and over posthumous property rights. In the event of a contract, the contract is enforced according to the property owner's wishes. Typically, libertarians believe that any unwilled property goes to remaining living relatives, and ideally, none of the property goes to the government in such a case. Many libertarians advocate the establishments of trusts to avoid taxation of property at the time of death.
[edit] Natural resources
Some libertarians, (such as free market environmentalists and objectivists) believe that environmental damage is a result of state ownership and mismanagement of natural resources and believe that private ownership of all natural resources will result in a better environment, as a private owner of property will have more incentive to ensure the longer term value of the property. Others, such as geolibertarians, believe that such resources (especially land) cannot be considered property.
[edit] Footnotes
- ^ Take It To The Limit: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism. Transcript from an interview
- ^ Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr. Vouchers: Another Name for Welfare
- ^ The maxims are described in the introduction of this article. A tenet is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true. (Merriam-Webster) i.e. it is generally held to be true that as a fundamental maxim all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual.
- ^ "The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." Walter Block, GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY: REPLY TO HOLCOMBE, JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES VOLUME 19, NO. 3 (SUMMER 2005): 71–93
