Tag Archives: libertarianism

Donald Trump and the Libertarian Future, by Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy

Posted on January 20, 2017 | 1 comment

Two libertarians from Reason’s take on Donald Trump and the age we live in. From Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy at reason.com:

We need a new, individualized operating system for politics and it will happen on the new president’s watch, whether he wants it or not.

Donald Trump is nobody’s idea of a libertarian but his presidency provides a tremendous opportunity to advance libertarian policies, outcomes, and aspirations in our politics and broader culture. Those of us who believe in reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government and expanding the autonomy, opportunities, and ability of people to live however they choose should welcome the Trump era. That’s not because of the new president’s agenda but because he enters office as the man who will inevitably close out a failing 20th-century model of governance.

Liberal, conservative, libertarian: We all understand that whatever the merits of the great political, economic, and cultural institutions of the last 70 years—the welfare state built on unsustainable entitlement spending; a military that spends more and more and succeeds less and less; the giant corporations (ATT, IBM, General Motors) that were “beyond” market forces until they weren’t; rigid social conventions that sorted people into stultifying binaries (black and white, male and female, straight and mentally ill)—these are everywhere in ruins or retreat.

The taxi cab—a paradigmatic blending of private enterprise and state power in a system that increasingly serves no one well—is replaced by ride-sharing services that are endlessly innovative, safer, and self-regulating. Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign slogan—Uber everything—was the one self-evident truth uttered throughout the 2016 campaign. All aspects of our lives are being remade according to a new, inherently libertarian operating system that empowers individuals and groups to pursue whatever experiments in living they want. As one of us (Nick Gillespie) wrote with Matt Welch in The Declaration of Independents, the loosening of controls in our commercial, cultural, and personal lives has consistently enriched our world. The sharing economy, 3D printing and instantaneous global communication means businesses grow, flourish, adapt, and die in ways that perfectly fulfill Schumpeterian creative destruction. We live in a world where consuming art, music, video, text, and other forms of creative expression is its own form or production and allows us to connect in lateral rather than hierarchical ways. Pernicious racial and ethnic categories persist but they have been mostly supplanted by a tolerance and a level of lived pluralism that was unimaginable even 20 years ago, when less than [SIC] of Americans approved of interracial marriages. Politics, Welch and Gillespie wrote, is a lagging indicator of where America is already heading and in many cases has already arrived.

To continue reading: Donald Trump and the Libertarian Future

1 Comment

Posted in Government, Philosophy, Politics

Tagged ,

Are You a Libertarian? Is Gary Johnson One? by Eric Peters

Posted on October 20, 2016 | 3 comments

A nice summary of a contemporary libertarian philosophy divorced from Ayn Rand’s philosophical underpinnings (she did not call the political aspects of her philosophy libertarianism, but many libertarians claim her as the fountainhead (pardon the pun) of their politics). From Eric Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Gary Johnson describes himself as a Libertarian but isn’t one.

A Libertarian is not a “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” Republican – which is what Johnson is, even if he doesn’t realize it.

Republicans, just like Democrats, believe the use of coercion to organize society and direct the actions of individuals contrary to their will is morally legitimate; they just prefer to use less of it – and for different reasons – than Democrats.

It’s like the difference between Coke and Pepsi… 

Johnson supports forcing people to have their children vaccinated (and according to a schedule decreed by government; that is, by people such as himself). He believes it is acceptable to threaten people with violence in order to compel them to hand over their money (taxes) just like a Democrat; the only difference being the use to which these extorted funds are put. Johnson prefers taxes designed to combat “climate change” or to fund the United Nations. But he does not object to taxes in principle.

Johnson, like other Republicans, supports using force to impose his values on others; to deny other people their right to freely associate (or not associate). He is on record defending the use of government force to compel the owner of a privately owned business to do business with people he would prefer not to do business with. Etc.

Whether you agree or disagree with any of the above political points-of-view, there can be no disagreement that Libertarians do not countenance such things.

Johnson may be a libertine (he supports state-sanctioned gay marriage and is ok with the state acceding to the use/possession of some drugs – those Johnson thinks are “ok”) but he isn’t a Libertarian. He doesn’t seem to have any idea what it means to be a Libertarian.

So, what defines a Libertarian?

Fundamentally, a Libertarian is a person who rejects as a moral indecency the use of force in social/political interactions with others. He defends the moral principle of voluntary interactions.

Even when he personally would perhaps act differently or does not approve of what others choose to do.

The Libertarian accepts as his moral-philosophical starting point that just as he is the absolute owner of himself, other people are equally the absolute owners of themselves. Accordingly – logically and morally – no human being has any rightful ownership claims to another human being.

Or their property.

Libertarians hold that what you create or produce (or freely acquire by purchasing it or it being freely given to you by its rightful owner) is yours without qualification – and belongs to no other person. You may choose to share what’s yours with others. But no one has a right to force you to share, much less take your property – or control it any way whatsoever.

To continue reading: Are You a Libertarian? Is Gary Johnson One?

 

3 Comments

Posted in Morality, Philosophy, Politics

Tagged ,

We Can Live With Communists, by Eric Peters

Posted on July 26, 2016 | Leave a comment

There is one key difference betweeen Libertarians and adherents of every other political philosophy: Libertarians don’t tell anyone else what to do, and ask only that others don’t tell them what to do. From Eric Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

A Libertarian can live in peace with a communist or a fascist – or even a Republican or a Democrat.

Let ‘em get together, buy a compound, admit like-minded people to their group and do their thing. God bless ’em. The Libertarian will not bother them. He won’t tax ‘em, regulate ‘em or attempt to control them in any way whatsoever. He will respect their right to choose their way of life, even if it means handing over control of their lives to an individual “leader” or “representatives” of the (supposed) will of “the people.”

But none of them are capable of leaving a Libertarian in peace.

All of the political ideologies except Libertarianism are defined by their refusal to take “no, thanks” as an answer. Their unwillingness to leave others alone. Their utter rejection of the principle that government (like any contract) is only legitimate if freely consented to.

If you do not agree with a communist, a fascist, a Republican or a Democrat, he will insist. If you resist, he will use whatever violent means are necessary to compel your obedience. If it comes down to it, he will have you killed.

Chairman Mao – one of history’s greatest mass murderers – was absolutely right when he observed that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

This goes for Republicans and Democrats, too. They are just less honest with themselves about it than Chairman Mao. They patty-cake talk in euphemisms about the violence that is the foundation of their ideologies. But euphemisms don’t alter the fact that violence is, indeed, the foundation of their ideologies – as much as it was the foundation of Mao’s.

We are talking differences of degree, not kind.

Only Libertarians offer the latter.

You can deride us as “selfish” – a commonly hurled insult – but whatever you may think about us, we aren’t the ones pointing guns at people. We may ask for your cooperation, attempt to persuade you that “x” or “y” is a good idea and worth your support. But we stop there. If you tell us, “no thanks – I’m not interested” we will accept your decision and leave you be. We might be disappointed, but we won’t insist.

That is the nature of our “selfishness.”

We don’t claim you “owe” money for things you never bought and don’t want. We figure it’s up to you to decide what you want and buy it if you want to. We only ask that you use your own money – not ours.

We figure, if you’re not hurting someone by whatever it is you’re doing, we haven’t got any right to interfere with what you’re doing. We may think you’re weird, even foolish. But we will leave you alone unless you aren’t leaving others alone.

Can a Republican or Democrat say the same?

Never.

They differ (and bicker) only logistically. Who will get what taken from whom. They both agree (unanimously) on the taking – and the controlling.

And here’s the thing: Inevitably, the taking and controlling wax rather than wane. Attempting to “limit” it is as hopeless as trying to keep a puddle of gasoline from igniting by only putting a match to a corner of the puddle.

To continue reading: We Can Live With Communists

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Government, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Tagged