Libertarianism: Beyond Left and Right

It seems that the time has come for me to briefly explain the libertarian philosophy and set it aside from the modern “right” versus “left” construct. The concept of “right” versus “left” is one that is highly skewed and does not address the vast differences in the philosophy of individuals on either extreme. In fact, there are many people that fit into neither "right" nor "left." For instance, an individual who adores capitalism and believes that individuals should be able to consume marijuana at their own risk does not fit into the conventional "left" versus "right" construct; this individual displays elements of both philosophies. Can it be that this person is confused or is it that we have a false understanding of the make-up and determination of political orientations? The answer is: most likely the latter and libertarianism provides the proof. Libertarianism does not see the political atmosphere as simply “right” versus “left,” healthcare spending versus war spending, trees versus guns, socialism versus capitalism, etc. but instead libertarians view the make-up of ideologies as a spread between anarchism and totalitarianism.

On one end of the spectrum there are statists and on the other end there are anarchists. One group favors a government that intervenes in all human affairs -both economic and social- while the other believes that no government has the right to dictate actions between individuals, regardless of the circumstance. Such extremist groups exist but more common are variations of either side. Libertarians tend to think that "rightists" and "leftists" are actually one in the same, namely, statists. We believe that the true emphasis is not how government spends the money of the people but that it is in fact spending it at all. We do not necessarily care in what direction government is growing larger but instead that it is growing at all. It is nothing short of an exercise in ignorance to label a libertarian a "leftist" or a "rightist" for true libertarians find very few fundamental agreements with either sect.

As a result of this interpretation of political ideologies, libertarians would tend more to the anarchist side of the political spectrum. That said, an overwhelming majority of libertarians are not anarchists and believe that government, as much of an inefficient force as it maybe, is necessary to carry out certain tasks such as maintaining a military, police force, and a court system. It is not that libertarians favor anarchy over any other type of extreme political orientation but instead it is anarchy that most resembles the minimalist government libertarians tend to drift towards.

In essence, libertarianism is the philosophy that the individual knows what is best for their life and that they know how they must conduct themselves so as to reach their goals. Libertarians are champions of capitalism in that they understand that human productivity is engaged through the profit and loss mechanism. Capitalism is what naturally arises by way of profitable human interactions and it is the logical result of individuals trying to maximize their utilities. Libertarians see socialism as a destructive system that ruins the productive mechanisms of free human interaction and trade. It is socialism (government ownership of the means of production) and fascism (government ownership of the direction and totality of output) that rob the people of their natural productive abilities. These governmental institutions try to mimic an economic system that can only exist outside of central planning. Only when there is an absence of central planning and business regulations can capitalist productivity reach it's crescendo.

Individuals also tend to believe that fascism and socialism are diametrically opposed; this can not be further from the truth. In reality, socialism and fascism are ideological cousins and variations of the same line of thought. Both systems are embrace certain aspects of central planning and both try to forcefully manipulate the social and economic normalities of the citizenry. These institutions also seek to control their economies or the output of their economics and as a consequence force society to accept the lifestyles of another group of individuals.

One will find that there are strong black markets in societies that are or were under the grip of socialism or fascism. This is a result of their respective governments banning certain economic transactions and criminalizing select "anti-social" behaviors. For instance, the United States Federal Government has been immersed in a drug war since Franklin D. Roosevelt and as a result has spent billions of dollars fighting the use of drugs in the United States and abroad. Though the government can attack the supply side of the drug community all it wants, the demand side will never recede. In fact, many will argue that the demand for drugs has increased significantly because of the existence of the drug war and the "taboo" nature of illegal drugs in modern social circles. Before the drug war, crack-cocaine never existed but a few years after Richard Nixon increased funding for the drug war, crack-cocaine was introduced as a cheaper version of cocaine. In essence, because the drug war had run the price of cocaine through the roof, the black market sought new ways to deliver to their clients the same effects but at a cheaper (both in quality and price) rate. The market for heroine also changed dramatically since the inception of the drug war. A drug that used to be diluted is now incredibly pure and has caused -as a result of its increasing purity- a number of overdoses. People believe that whenever an individual overdoses on heroine or cocaine it is because of the inherent properties of the drug itself yet this is not the reality of the situation. If heroine and cocaine were legal, the market would regulate it's purity down to a level that minimized overdosing.

Many individuals also believe that libertarians are "doves" and that they fear or are inherently against war; again, this is also false. The mainstream libertarian opinion of war is that in certain incredibly rare cases, war is necessary. That said, we are also against "jumping-the-gun" and understand that war is not only incredibly costly in terms of dollars but also in terms of lives. Many times wars wipe out an entire generation of individuals and not at a profit either. All wars have a certain direct cost but few see the indirect costs of the war. For instance, everyone speaks of the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq but few add-in the lost lifetime productivity of those killed in the conflict. Libertarians understand that not all countries or individuals are moral and just, this is why we believe very strongly in the right to bear arms as a method of self protection. At the same time, we believe that only true threats should be engaged and that there have been very few instances in the history of the United States that serious threats have arisen overseas. With respect to certain tragic events such as 9/11, libertarians would see such occurrences as the logical conclusion of an overgrown government. Aside from the negative effects our government has had in the middle east during the entirety of the 20th century, the government has severely limited the second amendment rights of it's citizens. On 9/11, thousands of people were murdered by terrorists with simple box cutters. If individuals were able to carry guns -as allow in the second amendment-the events of 9/11 would have never occurred. Those terrorists wouldn't have been able to even mention that the planes were being hijacked before a passanger stood up and shot them.

It would be impossible to explain the totality of libertarian thought within the constraints of a single essay. That said, what all individuals must understand is that libertarianism can not be comprehended using the "right" versus "left" false dichotomy but must be understood using the "no-government" versus "totalitarianism" spectrum. Libertarianism is the only philosophy that aims at preserving individual liberty, laissez-faire capitalism, and confronting all threats with a sound heart and mind. Therefore, a libertarian would state that they are the most anti-communist of all political ideologies and that many of those non-libertarian individuals that label themselves as anti-communist are out-of-touch with the reality and that they themselves practice variations of the same ideology they supposedly despise. As Ayn Rand once said when asked to explain her philosophy while standing on one foot:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.