Political Philosophy: Perceived Fundamental Flaws In Libertarianism

[WARNING: This is a long post!]

FOREWORD:

   The libertarian crowd is very passionate about their political ideology, so everyone must be careful so as to not take what I say out of it's proper context. This is not a personal attack against or bashing of the people who are libertarians, but rather a detailed critique as to why I believe the ideology to be fundamentally flawed.

   With that being said, do not believe that I have the idea that our current system in the U.S. is perfect, because it is not. It does have it's flaws. However, I do not think the whole libertarian belief system is a way to move the nation (or the world for that matter) forward. Notice I did say that the whole libertarian belief system is not a way to move forward, this is because some aspects of libertarianism I find to be more appealing, and I believe a lot of people would agree with me.

What is 'Libertarianism'?

Well, according to Merriam-Webster, generally defined it is:

"LIBERTARIANISM: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

 
   This definition is loose, but it gives you a general idea of libertarianism. Once you dig deeper into libertarianism though, you will learn that there are varying degrees of libertarian. You can have libertarians like Gary Johnson who 'harder' libertarians call a Republican 'lite', or you can have anarchist-libertarians like Adam Kokesh. All of these different types follow the general definition seen above and in reality are varied around the beliefs of Ron Paul, who is a very cherished figure of the libertarian community.

   I will specifically adopt the Ron Paul type of libertarianism and refer to it in this critique. If you are a libertarian reading this but you are more of the Gary Johnson type, less of this will apply to what you believe.

Image is from 'reddit'

Non-Aggression Principle

   So now that all that is out of the way. Let's move on. Let's talk about the libertarian notion of the 'non-aggression principle.' According to the Mises Institute wiki, the non-aggression principle is "an ethical stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate." They define aggression as "the initiation of physical force against persons of property. the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property." They elaborate that the non-aggression principle is different than pacifism, because the non-aggression principle does not rule out necessary action in the name of self-defense.

   Seems legitimate. Of course, the fine details of the non-aggression principle make it so that taxation is considered theft. For this reason, libertarians see taxation as illegitimate and inherently oppressive, since it is the seizure of their property. Furthermore, government itself is seen as an inherently immoral institution. There are varying degrees of this deep opposition to government, however in the case of Ron Paul he is basically one step away from anarchy.

   One problem with the entire non-aggression principle is that strict adherence to it's ethics can lead one to arrogance and even hatred to all other ethics that do not adhere to it's own principles. This is because people who oppose the non-aggression principle, even slightly, can automatically be painted as oppressive and evil. It is easy to blame someone of being immoral and evil if you can say "you want the state to oppress people!" This is something I have personally noticed among the libertarian crowd. For this reason, it is very difficult to have disagreement against libertarians without invoking an intense emotional accusation of being evil. In the defense of libertarians, it is nothing about the people themselves - it is strict adherence to the ethical stance that triggers this type of reaction.

From 'pinterest'

   The truth is that if you oppose the non-aggression principle it does not make you evil. It does not mean that people who oppose it want to hold you up at gunpoint and steal your wallet, nor would they see that as a good thing if they witnessed it happen to you. There are many individuals who oppose this principle, and many of these people are good. If you see things as black and white, you may disagree. However, there are legitimate justifications for not fully embracing the principle. For one thing, the non-aggression principle presents itself as the core stance of libertarianism. Due to this, there is no way that taxation can be enacted in a libertarian society without violating the principle. Why? Because the libertarian belief system would lead one to the conclusion that the state forcibly taking your money "at gun point" is theft of your property. So, to reiterate: they believe that only workers should have complete control of what they choose to spend their money on, and that their hard earned money should not be taken from them. If this is the case, then wouldn't the logical stance be that workers should have control over the wealth they produce rather than give most of it to the capitalist class?

   Nevertheless, without taxation it is not possible for government to function doing the things it does today. To a degree, I think that is a good thing. What stops me from complete agreement is when we get to some of the reasonable things that government does, like funding of education, healthcare programs, retirement programs, jobs creation/infrastructure, military, etc.

   The non-aggression principle places property rights and "freedom" ahead of the basic needs of humanity. There is no reciprocal relationship in libertarianism that allows for each individual to contribute his or her share to allow for the survival and continuation of the collective. The rejection in the non-aggression principle is the rejection of responsibility in taking a part for the species as a whole. There is no real recognition of every person's right to life. As an example, education will not be funded by the government because it is immoral, and so on and so forth.

Freedom & The Free Market

   How about freedom? libertarianisms say that they are the true party of freedom. By freedom, they refer to allowing an individual to carry out their practices as they wish, without interference of any kind. This is why true libertarians generally support anarchist-capitalism (an-cap.) The problem here is that the term "freedom" as it is defined in libertarianism is very simplistic. Is it freedom when people are forced subject to the harsh reality of the free market?

   From the legalization of drugs to ancap, it surely seems that libertarianism supports maximum freedom. It is true that libertarianism allows for the pursuit of one's most selfish desires, almost unabated. Businesses would be able to practice as they please, and individuals could do all the drugs they want. However, ultimate freedom trumps the freedom of others. How so? take for example an alcoholic. An alcoholic is someone who is addicted to the recurring use of ethanol, no matter how bad the consequences may be. In any society, an argument can be made that the decision of alcoholics to continue to use alcohol affects others. This in turn, can be likened to an oppression of your freedom. A family alcoholic continues to use alcohol and despite harmful effects it has on health, it can also place tension in households between family members, and create abusive environments. This is why and how ultimate freedom can be it's own form of oppression (I will return to this later on, bear with me.)

From 'quickmeme' (I didn't make this though.)

      Let's hone in on anarchist-capitalism. An-cap means no state regulation and no taxation. With the elimination of the state, society would run in favor of private property, free markets, and individual sovereignty. Society is supposed to improve itself through the discipline of the free market. Police departments, firefighting departments, military, courts - virtually everything, would be privatized. The idea behind this is like killing two birds with one stone; you get maximum freedom and superior quality of life, goods & services. The ideology has a strong attachment to the belief that the free market will always produce superior quality goods & services. I find this to be a misunderstanding of how the free market truly functions. Why? because it often has shown us that instead, it produces superior marketing.

From 'Business Insider'

   This is due to the nature of the business model within the context of a free market economy. In a majority of cases, the question is not "can I produce a really great X?", but rather "how can I make the most profit selling X while maintaining the lowest possible production costs?" What is a specific example of this? McDonald's. Just last year, McDonald's grossed a whopping $15.46B (believe it or not, last year was actually a bad year for McDonald's shares.) McDonald's is known for it's world famous Big-Mac, and it is arguably one of the most successful restaurants of all-time. But when people go to McDonald's, they don't expect amazing, world-class burgers that are truly the best of the best. The food is the same in basically in any of the chains around the world, and the food is simply okay. It's not great food, but it's okay. And a lot of people would probably just outright say it's disgusting. However, one thing McDonald's does do is world-class advertising. In 2014 (I couldn't find advertising information from 2015), McDonald's spent $1.42B in advertising, on the U.S. alone. That is a decent chunk of their annual profits.

   What's my point? My point is that the free market does not always mean superior products, and McDonald's proves it. You might say, "well McDonald's is so successful because they are the creators of modern day fast food" or something along those lines, to which I would reply that your point does not help your case. If we take this logic and apply it to education, we are looking at the potential for a product that is not superior in quality, but superior in it's marketing techniques. To give entrepreneurs the opportunity at profiting at the cost of developing children is a questionable idea. The free market needs losers, while public education is supposed to understand that no children should be left behind. Likewise, forcing families that live in poverty to send their children to private school may prove impossible or extremely, extremely difficult financially. This wouldn't just adversely affect a small number of families either, the 2010 Census Bureau reported that 16.4 million of children in the United States lived in poverty (source.) Every year since that last report, poverty has increased. A more general poverty study by the Census Bureau reported that in 2014, poverty in America was up to 46.7 million people. Do you see the problem with privatization of everything yet? (There is an article that goes further in-depth on the adverse effects of privatizing all education here.)

 
   Let's rewind a little and go back to talking about libertarianism's philosophical premise of freedom. On the subject of freedom, libertarianism is fairly straightforward. As I've already mentioned, a main goal of libertarianism is the considerable shrinking or abolishment of the state because the state is a coercive force. However, upon closer inspection it appears that the abolishing of the state in favor of full "freedom" really only shifts the coercion of the state to the coercion of free market forces. This is because full privatization puts you at the will of the owners of whatever privatized entity is in question. Furthermore, here's some food for thought. Wouldn't a private entity owning the house you live in, the car you drive, the income you earn, etc. be an infringement upon your true freedom? Someone who controls a part of your needs, controls you. For example, you can't just spend money as you wish, because you have to calculate how much money will go into your housing loan, utilities, car payments, student loans, etc. and spend accordingly. Also, this private entity can theoretically seize what you have away from you. Much like the way many fear the government can take what you have away from you. By definition, that means you aren't really free. With libertarianism however, free market forces will also be in control of roads, all land, sewer management, prisons, police, firefighters etc (and what about air, water?.) It seems that people would be trading government that is at least theoretically accountable to them, with CEOs and boards of directors from companies that have no interest in representing the interests of the people - only the profit motive above all else. Without taxation, people would have to voluntarily pay for these things. As noble as it may sound to say you've eliminated taxation, how do any of these things stay afloat? Will people really voluntarily pay for all these services?

Corporations doing whatever they want is a good thing? From 'tech in Asia'

  In other words, no, I don't think libertarianism really advocates for true freedom. I also want to really hammer home on the subjects of how corporations can be oppressive in a free market. Do business practices always work in our best interest and make us all better off? I would answer absolutely not. In fact, this is something that I don't think is up for debate. No one should even try to argue that corporations always make us all better off. The truth is, when we look at the current global situation we are witnessing what happens when the 'ugly face' of capitalism is left unchecked. The global power elite is composed of global decision makers in key positions of power to influence the economy, media, and policy. The global power elite (an introduction to the subject) specifically consists of people like high profile journalists, members of the corporate community (this is a big one), politicians, members of the military industrial complex, banking industry, multi-billionaires etc. Besides the subversion of international and national democracy, the global power elite has built a power structure that allows for them to shape the law arena so as to protect their elite class and their privilege. Here in the U.S., the power elite have influenced policy in tax codes so as to help create their "hidden" welfare state. On a global level, the power elite stash vast amounts of money in tax havens. But what is really important is that the inconsideration of the global power elite will have an adverse effect on everyone.

   Profit is the prime motive for a business as I've mentioned already. Because of this, foods that are linked to causing cancer will be of no concern to the food industry. Imagine, this is already the case. Yet, it would surely be worse under a completely free market. What other failures of corporations are there? Far too many to try and mention them all. However, another thing is that it is no secret that many corporations have never minded polluting and destroying the environment. This in turn, affects the very health of the air we breathe. In China for example, industrial activity has led to incredibly thick layers of smog in cities like Beijing. All these things I talk about would be exacerbated if corporations could do whatever they want. Another example of a major failure of the free market is the recent BHS collapse.

   The man solely responsible for the collapse of BHS (which is a retail store chain) is Phillip Green. In short, billionaire Phillip Green was the owner of BHS for about 15 years. Under his reign, the corporation fell into demise, and cost 11,000 jobs. Furthermore, Green's greed and lack of corporate governance plunged the value of the company and drained the corporate pension fund for workers. The company's deficit fell to $749 million. Green figured that his company was about to fold, but he didn't want to let it happen under his watch. So what he did was proceed to sell BHS to a buyer for $1 and 30 cents. No, I'm not kidding. The buyer who Green sold BHS to was completely inexperienced and had no idea what to do with the company. However, Green pocketed $552 million from the transaction (by selling company dividends.) Due to this blatant disregard for others and selfishness, 20,000 pensioners are now facing risk of significant cuts to their pension incomes. The British gov't has already called Green's actions a display of the 'ugly face' of capitalism. What's to stop dozens of other BHS's from occurring if corporations aren't bothered by pesky government regulations?

Trickle-Down Economics & Democracy

From 'quiet mike'

   As we draw near the end of my perceived flaws of libertarianism, I'd like to continue forward with several last points. First of all, in anarchist-capitalism, the idea is that people's wages and jobs won't be affected adversely, instead there would be more job creation and more wealth for working class Americans if we completely eliminated the middleman from the equation (all government regulation.) However, this prevalence of the 'trickle-down economics' theory has already proven to be false.

   When we look at history, it is simply a fact that in the 1960s, the U.S. top tax rate was 70% (that's not even the highest we've ever had) and the country was seeing the greatest growth in median household income in modern history. During this period, economic growth was at about 5.4% per year. You can not reasonably deny that the middle class is what truly powers an economy. Why? Because when workers have more money, they spend more. In turn, this fuels the economy, thereby making the middle class the true job creators. An ancap economy would function exacerbating what we already witness, which is tens of millions getting paid to Wall Street traders while thousands of farmers are barely getting by. This is not an accurate reflection of what job is necessary for society, but rather a system that is shaped by status and bargaining power.

   The truth is when we give tax breaks to the wealthy, the majority of the time they hoard it and there is no proof that they overwhelmingly invest it back to the economy. If what I just said was false, then logically we wouldn't have the current levels of income inequality that we currently have in the U.S. Right?  

Source from 'google images'

                                                                                      The Reagan era is what introduced us to trickle-down economics, and as you can see, that's just about the time when income inequality began to skyrocket. Meanwhile the bottom 99% has seen little wealth "trickle-down", as you can tell.

   The Walton family, who is the Walmart family that is worth billions, saw their wealth increase to $90 billion in 2010, which is 22% more than what they had in 2007. In that same time period, the median family wealth in America fell by 40%, at least according to data from the Federal Reserve. Where is the trickle-down there? To make matters worse, Walmart has been accused of paying their workers low wages and 'shameful labor practices.' As we can see, there is a reason why I do not buy trickle-down economics, and why I especially don't buy the idea of expanding trickle-down economics to anarchy for the rich and corporations.


   On the subject of democracy, I definitely am no fan of libertarianism. Libertarianism is strictly anti-democracy because it does not legitimize the 'oppression' of the majority that restrains freedom of others. This is especially a problem if the majority limits property rights in the name of the common good, or common interest. Libertarianism splits as to what the solution is, as some who aren't anarchist-libertarians advocate for monarchy (which doesn't make sense if democracy is seen as oppressive) while others would obviously prefer anarchy. In my opinion, I don't really think you can get more fair than democracy. The alternatives aren't convincing. It makes sense to support a system in which you give people a voice, and the largest amount of people who agree on a certain issue should get there way. Why do I think this is the fairest system? Because there is simply no way to please everyone. Democracy is the closest thing though.

                                                        In Conclusion....

                           

   Although liberals and conservatives have their differences, it seems to be the case they both recognize a legitimate role of gov't and taxation. Libertarianism is definitely the "radical" ideology when it comes to being compared against modern liberalism and conservatism.

   I would like to reiterate that the biggest flaw (in my opinion) about the libertarian ideology is that libertarians do not admit to a human right to life. The ideology places the individual "freedom" above any sort of obligation to continue the cooperation that leads to the well-being and survival of the collective. Libertarianism presents itself as the true moral philosophy, when in reality its model of society is the opposite of what I would consider morally fulfilling. On one end you have communism, and on the other end is the laissez-faire economy - both seem to be terminally deficient in their understanding of balance between human greed and placing the community above the individual. Libertarianism, like communism, I ultimately regard as being quite naive. That anyone can believe that you can allow for the individual to pursue all their selfish desires with no obligation to the collective and expect good to come from it is beyond me. To choose between the two extremes and pick a balance that works best for the ultimate survival and thriving of society is what should be the goal.

   However, I am not prepared nor am I willing to dump the libertarian ideology. In fact, I find libertarianism to be useful in its social dimension to help further the idea of reasonable personal freedom and liberty. Specifically, the ideology forces you to take a powerful stand against constant war and foreign interventions unless absolutely necessary. Furthermore, libertarians are non-bullshitters that don't play around when it comes to bringing justice to corruption in government and the political system, as well as maintaining deep loyalty to constitutional rights and being vocal opponents of infringements upon certain liberties.

****
I want to be challenged. If something smells fishy to you, or you have any sort of issue with my analysis, please challenge my position. I am willing to hear arguments and change my position if it comes down to it, as I would expect you to do the same. Drop your comments below.