Rights libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on

Origins

Topics

Related

Philosophy Portal
Politics Portal
v • d • e

Rights libertarianism (also known as rights-theorist libertarianism, natural rights libertarianism, deontological libertarianism, or libertarian moralism^[1]) is the oldest of the two principal branches of libertarianism (the other being the consequentialist school).

As the name suggests, deontological libertarians advocate deontological moral tenets as the root of their thinking, stating that no human being holds the right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another human being (otherwise known as the non-aggression principle). Such a rule is adhered to by deontological libertarians, regardless of the consequences of adhering to it - even if the result is a loss or reduction of liberty. In general, supporters of the non-aggression principle believe that any infringement on the person or property of another should be met with equal and reasonable force. For example, if person A is walking down a street, and person B approaches him and punches person A, then person A can only respond by punching him back. It could be considered inappropriate for person A to pull out a gun and shoot person B, even if it were in legitimate self-defence.

Many deontological libertarians necessarily result in being anarcho-capitalists. This is the case since they feel that deontological minarchism is not a logically rigorous or consistent position. If human beings hold self-ownership, and thus are the ultimate arbiters of how they live their lives, then such a position is incompatible with life under a government. A minarchist state, which operated under deontological principles, would still compel individuals to submit to its whims and edicts, even if it were limited in size and scope. It can be said then that minarchism from a consequentialist perspective is more logically sound, and is something that deontological minarchists should take note of.

[edit] Criticism

The deontological stance is certainly not beyond any reproach. Some libertarians feel that only emphasising on the motivations behind an action is ill-advised. It is possible that violations of the non-aggression principle could bring the greatest liberty to the greatest number. Such consequentialist thinking has sought some libertarians to reject deontological reasoning and formulate what is called "consequentialist libertarianism". Thus, such libertarians value the positive consequences that liberty can bring to all in society, away from strictly focusing on whether it is wrong to initiate force or fraud against another's person or property. Murray Rothbard, a proponent of rights libertarianism, answered this criticism by asserting that the means shouldn't contradict the ends.^[2]

Moreover, a number of consequentialist libertarians rebuke the deontologlcal libertarian standpoints of natural rights and self-ownership. They believe that there is no empirical or logical basis for the presence of natural rights, and that such a base for a political ideology is overly hollow. That being said, many deontological libertarians also dismiss the ideal of natural rights for the same reason. The late libertarian writer and investment advisor Harry Browne was a prominent deontological libertarian who did not base his libertarian rationale on a foundation of natural rights.

Also, consequentialist libertarians, with regard to the ideal of self-ownership, state that this notion is also without substance. They would commonly ask "what force endowed me, and every other human being alive, with self-ownership? How does one prove or substantiate its existence?" Murray Rothbard answered this criticism by using process of elimination, whereby he showed that 100% self-ownership is the only logical position.^[2] Other deontological libertarians would respond by stating that self-ownership is inherent to human physiology. For example, if a person adds a comment to a Wikipedia entry, then no higher or external force is maintaining control over his or her fingers whilst typing. Thus, one can clearly demonstrate that an individual holds dominion over themselves, without any compulsion from a higher or outside power. The Canadian market anarchist philosopher Stefan Molyneux often presents this argument in reference to any proof surrounding the existence of self-ownership.

Some libertarians do not view deontology and consequentialism (in reference to foundations of libertarian thought) as a rigid dichotomy. Consequentialist libertarians affirm that a wider prevlance of liberty in society enable one to seek their happiness in life. Deontological libertarians would hold little problem with such a basis, but would contend that a rights basis can be a starting point for the achievement and attainment of one's happiness. If, say, somebody seeks happiness and contentment by enjoying long walks in the countryside, then it is facilitated by a rights basis. He or she would not be able to even walk in the countryside, or even initially recognise that such an activity gave them pleasure, without control over his or her own body. Some would convey that this logic is consequentialist by definition. Nevertheless, consequentialist libertarian thinking (in a pure form at least) does not utilise self-ownership (a deontological libertarian standpoint) at its root, so it is possible that a synthesis of the two positions is plausible.