Libertarianism is variously defined by sources as there is no general consensus among scholars on the definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Scholars generally agree that libertarianism refers to the group ofpolitical philosophies which emphasizefreedom,individual liberty andvoluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate asociety with little or nogovernment power.
TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as themoral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Libertarian historianGeorge Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the AmericanLibertarian Party,libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]
There are many philosophical disagreements among proponents of libertarianism concerning questions of ideology, values and strategy. For instance,left-libertarians were the ones to coin the term as a synonym for anarchism. Outside of the United States, libertarianism is still synonymous withanarchism andsocialism (social anarchism andlibertarian socialism).[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]Right-libertarianism, known in the United States simply as libertarianism, was coined as a synonym forclassical liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell due toAmerican liberals embracingprogressivism andeconomic interventionism in the early 20th century after theGreat Depression and with theNew Deal.[13] As a result, the term was co-opted in the mid-20th century to instead advocatelaissez-fairecapitalism and strongprivate property rights such as inland,infrastructure andnatural resources.[14][15][16] The main debate between the two forms of libertarianism therefore concerns the legitimacy ofprivate property and its meaning. Most other debates remains within right-libertarianism asabortion,capital punishment,foreign affairs,LGBT rights andimmigration are non-issues for left-libertarians whereas within right-libertarianism they are debated due to their divide betweencultural liberal andcultural conservative right-libertarians.
Libertarian philosophies are generally divided on three principal questions, namely (1) by ethical theory, whether actions are determined to be moralconsequentially or in terms ofnatural rights (ordeontologically); (2) the legitimacy ofprivate property; and (3) the legitimacy of thestate. Libertarian philosophy can therefore be broadly divided into eight groups based on these distinctions.
An estimated 60–70% ofAmerican libertarians believe women are entitled toabortion rights, although many who identify aspro-choice do maintain thatabortion becomeshomicidal at some stage during pregnancy and therefore should not remain legal beyond that point.[17]
To the contrary, theLibertarian Party states that government should have no role in restricting abortion, implying opposition to any and all proposed federal or state legislation which might prohibit any method of abortion at any given stage of gestation. Groups like the Association of Libertarian Feminists and Pro-Choice Libertarians support keeping government out of the issue entirely.
On the other hand,Libertarians for Life argues that humanzygotes,embryos andfetuses possess the same naturalhuman rights and deserve the same protections asneonates, calling for outlawing abortion as an aggressive act against a rights-bearing unborn child. Former Texas CongressmanRon Paul, a figurehead of American libertarianism, is ananti-abortion physician as is his son Kentucky SenatorRand Paul. Nonetheless, most American libertarians, whether pro-choice or pro-life, agree the federal government should play no role in prohibiting, protecting, or facilitating abortion and oppose theSupreme Court conclusion inRoe v. Wade that abortion is afundamental right if performed during the first trimester of pregnancy by virtue of an implicit constitutionalright to privacy.[citation needed]
In addition, there are the property rights perspectives[18]evictionism[19][20] anddeparturism[21] which allow that the unwanted fetus is atrespasser on the mother's property (her womb), but hold that this designation does not mean that the child may therefore be directly killed.[22] The former view maintains that the trespasser may only be killed indirectly as a result ofeviction,[23] while the latter view upholds only non-lethal eviction during normal pregnancies.[24]
Right-libertarians are divided oncapital punishment, also known as thedeath penalty. Those opposing it generally see it as an excessive abuse of state power which is by its very nature irreversible, with American libertarians possibly seeing it also in conflict with theBill of Rights ban on "cruel and unusual punishment". Some libertarians who believe capital punishment can be just under certain circumstances may oppose execution based on practical considerations. Those who support the death penalty do so onself-defense orretributive justice grounds.
There are broadly two different types of libertarianism which are based on ethical doctrines, namelyconsequentialist libertarianism andnatural-rights libertarianism, ordeontological libertarianism. Deontological libertarians have the view thatnatural rights exist and from there argue that initiation offorce andfraud should never take place.[25] Natural-rights libertarianism may include bothright-libertarianism andleft-libertarianism.[26] Consequentialist libertarians argue that afree market and strongprivate property rights bring about beneficial consequences, such as wealth creation or efficiency, rather than subscribing to a theory of rights or justice.[27] There are hybrid forms of libertarianism that combine deontological and consequentialist reasoning.[27]
Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from theconsent of the governed, but rather from contract or mutual agreement, although this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified.[28][29][30] Somelibertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and usehistorical materialism to justify their political beliefs.[31]
Libertarians are generally against any military intervention in other countries. Other libertarians are also opposed to strategic alliances with foreign countries. According to its 2016 platform, the AmericanLibertarian Party is against anyforeign aid to other countries and the only wars that they support are in situations ofself-defense.[32] Such libertarians generally try to explain that they are notisolationists, butnon-interventionists.[33][34]
Libertarians generally supportfreedom of movement andopen borders. However, someright-libertarians, particularlyHoppeananarcho-capitalists who propose the fullprivatization ofland andnatural resources, contend that a policy of open borders amounts to legalizedtrespassing.
Libertarians 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, right-libertarians believe that any intestate property should go to the living relatives of the deceased and that none of the property should go to the government. Others say that if no will has been made, the property immediately enters the state of nature from which anyone (save the state) mayhomestead it.
Libertarians hold a variety of views onintellectual property (IP) and patents. Some libertarian natural rights theorists justify property rights in ideas and other intangibles just as they do property rights in physical goods, saying whoever made it owns it. Other libertarian natural rights theorists such asStephan Kinsella have held that only physical material can be owned and that ownership of IP amount to an illegitimate claim of ownership over that which enters another's mind that cannot be removed or controlled without violation of the non-aggression axiom. Pro-IP libertarians of theutilitarian tradition say that IP maximizes innovation while anti-IP libertarians of the selfsame persuasion say that it causes shortages of innovation. This latter view holds that IP is a euphemism forintellectual protectionism and should be abolished altogether.
There are differences of opinion regarding original appropriation, such as thelabor theory of property and thefirst possession theory of property.[35][36]
Following political economist and social reformerHenry George's philosophy ofclassical liberalism known asGeorgism and thesingle-tax movement of activists who supported it (see also thesingle tax), some free-marketcentrists and non-socialist left-libertarians known asgeolibertarians argue that becauseland is not the product of human labor and it is inelastic in supply and essential for life and wealth creation, themarketrental value of land should properly be consideredcommons. They interpret theLockean proviso and thelaw of equal liberty to mean thatexclusive land ownership beyond one's equal share of aggregate land value necessarily restricts the freedom of others to access natural space and resources. In order to promote freedom and minimize waste, they argue that absent improvements individuals should surrender the rental value of the land to which they hold legal title to the community as a subscription fee for the privilege to exclude others from the site. Since geolibertarians wish to limit the influence of government, they would have this revenue fund a universalbasic income orcitizen's dividend which would also function as asocial safety net to replace the existing welfare system. Based onDavid Ricardo'slaw of rent, they further argue that thistax shift would serve to boost wages.
In general, libertarians oppose laws that limit the sexual freedom of adults.[37]
Libertarians differ on whether any government at all is desirable. Some favor the existence of governments and see them as civilly necessary while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, if not intrinsically evil.[38][39]
Supporters of limited libertarian government or anight watchman state argue that placing all defense and courts under private control, regulated only by market demand, is an inherent miscarriage of justice because justice would be bought and sold as acommodity, thereby conflating authentic impartial justice with economic power.[40]Market anarchists counter that having defense and courts controlled by the state is both immoral and an inefficient means of achieving both justice and security.[41][42]Libertarian socialists hold that liberty is incompatible with state action based on aclass struggle analysis of thestate.[43]
Right-libertarians are divided overmandatory vaccination. Some oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of it violating a person's individual liberty and being skeptical of government authority. Others support mandatory vaccination, arguing that libertarian principles prohibit reckless behaviour that puts other people at risk. According toVoice of America, "opposition to vaccination is often couched in libertarian terms:It's my body, my choice."[44]
Right-libertarians such asfree-market environmentalists andObjectivists believe that environmental damage is more often than not a result ofstate ownership and mismanagement of natural resources, for example by themilitary-industrial complex. Other right-libertarians such asanarcho-capitalists contend thatprivate ownership of all natural resources will result in a better environment as a private owner ofproperty will have more incentive to ensure the longer term value of the property. Other libertarians such asgeolibertarians orleft-libertarians believe theEarth cannot legitimately be held in allodium, thatusufructuary title with periodic landvalue capture and redistribution avoids both thetragedy of the commons and thetragedy of the anticommons while respecting equal rights to natural resources.
Right-libertarian philosophies are usually strongpropertarians that defineliberty asnon-aggression, or the state in which no person or group aggresses against any other person or group, where aggression is defined as the violation ofprivate property.[25] This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that an order of private property is the only one that is both ethical and leads to the best possible outcomes.[41] They generally support thefree market and are not opposed to any concentration of power (monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.[45] However, there is also a minority of soft propertarian libertarian philosophies. According to this moderatelyleft-libertarian perspective, a society based on individual liberty and equal access to natural opportunities can be achieved through proportionate compensation to others by those who claim private ownership over a greater-than-equal share of the aggregate value of natural resources, absent any improvements.[46][47][48][49]
Non-propertarian libertarian philosophies hold that liberty is the absence of hierarchy and demands the leveling of systemically coercive and exploitative power structures. On thislibertarian socialist view, a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishingauthoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[50] Implicitly, it rejects any authority of private property and holds that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of any production resources to the detriment of others.[46][47][48][49] Libertarian socialism is a group ofpolitical philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic,stateless society without private property in the means of production. The term libertarian socialism is also used to differentiate this philosophy fromstate socialism.[51][52][53][54] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means ofdirect democracy such aslibertarian municipalism,citizens' assemblies,trade unions andworkers' councils.[55]
American libertarians, especially right-libertarians, are against laws that favor or harm any race or either sex. These includeJim Crow laws, statesegregation,interracial marriagebans and laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. Likewise, they oppose state-enforcedaffirmative action,hate crime laws andanti-discrimination laws. They would not use the state to prevent voluntary affirmative action or voluntary discrimination.[56][57][58] Most of these libertarians believe that the drive forprofit in themarketplace will diminish or eliminate the effects ofracism, which they tend to consider to be inherentlycollectivist. This causes a degree of dissonance among libertarians in federal systems such as in the United States, where there is debate among libertarians about whether the federal government has the right to coerce states to change their democratically created laws.
Somedeontological libertarians believe that consistent adherence to libertarian doctrines such as thenon-aggression principle demands unqualified moral opposition to any form of taxation, a sentiment encapsulated in the phrase "Taxation is theft!".[59]They would fund all services through gratuitous contributions, private law and defenseuser fees as well aslotteries.
Other libertarians support low taxes of various kinds, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providingpublic goods such ascrime prevention and a consistent, unifiedlegal system to punish rights violators.Commonly advocated reforms include aflat personal income tax, aconsumption tax such as theFairTax, or aland value tax system.
While the former proposals are normally considered necessary evils or strategic compromises,geolibertarians argue that asingle tax on therental value of land, typically in conjunction withPigovianpollution taxes andseverance taxes tointernalize negative externalities and curb naturalresource depletion, is not only non-distortionary and politically sustainable, but also more ethically attractive than zero taxation and even required for justice in property rights.
Libertarians generally believe thatvoluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms.[60] However, certain right-libertarians dispute theLockean claim thatsome rights are inalienable and maintain that even permanent voluntary slavery is possible and contractually binding.[61][62] Famous libertarianMurray Rothbard argued that libertarians seeing children as property of the parents left the platform open to sales of children as slaves, when parents needed finances, and that people entering into voluntary slavery would most likely be when there was no alternative available to pay debts, but this was not coercive as under the libertarian platform only the government could engage in coercion. Detractors maintain that there is no such thing as a morally-binding "slavery contract".
Meanwhile, critics of capitalism question the libertarian premise, arguing that the capitalist wage system iswage slavery.[63][64]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(July 2022) |
Involuntary commitment,outpatient commitment, mental-healthconservatorships, andinvoluntary treatment, although in opposition toself-ownership and in some countries the main way of confinement andsocial control, are issues rarely discussed by libertarians.
Thomas Szasz argued that involuntary psychiatry is incompatible with libertarianism and thatBertrand Russell,Robert Nozick,John Stuart Mill,Ayn Rand, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Friedrich von Hayek among others "went wrong" by their omission, ambiguity, or direct support.[65]
Most criticism comes from fields such as sociology (such as byMichel Foucault), psychiatry (such by asFranco Basaglia), and human rights NGOs. Philosophy and public-policy positioning by libertarians are often uncertain.
| This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(January 2024) |
There has been a long-standing debate about how to deal with the problem of fraud in a libertarian society.[66][67][68][69]
For example, Rothbard argued that conveying or spreading false information is not a problem, but fraud can be prohibited as a form of theft.[70] And Kinsella also expressed similar opinions.[71] However, Mark D. Friedman argues that this argument is dubious, because in the case of fraud, 'he has been duped, he nevertheless elects to entrust his property'.[72][73]
James W. Child questioned whether libertarians could maintain their standards of fraud.[66] Since then, many scholars have followed him and raised similar questions.
One can also argue that whether the sale is a legal offense depends upon whether Ethan knew the truth and intentionally exaggerated the qualities of his product: did he intentionally lie, or did he make an honest mistake? Does it matter? Rothbard would probably say no. Consider again his remark: "Surely legality or illegality should depend not on the motivation of the actor, but on the objective nature of the act. If an action is objectively non-invasive, then it should be legal regardless of the benevolent or malicious intentions of the actor" (Rothbard 1982, p. 121).
— Pavel Slutskiy (2016), Fraudulent advertising, pp.112-113[74]
The key question is whether any kind of fraud prevention or punishment can be derived directly from the basic principles of libertarianism, provided no additional constraints are imposed:
In the case of deceit, it is far from clear that the underlying action independent of intention – the conveyance of a falsehood – is something that persons have libertarian rights against. Neither self ownership nor property ownership imply rights to not receive false information. One exception occurs in special cases where a party has explicitly contracted to receive information. (...) Though promising, this solution cannot succeed. It is based on the idea that information is a good like any other that can be transferred between persons. However, if this is so, then exchanges of information are also subject to deceitfully obtained consent. Just as A might lie about the car's condition in order to obtain B's consent to a transaction she would not otherwise have consented to, A might lie about the properties of the information he is providing in the no-fraud clause that is intended to solve the fraud problem. Of course B could then try to contract against A's selling him a fraudulent contract, but by now it should be clear that this strategy is subject to a vicious regress.
— Benjamin Ferguson, Can libertarians get away with fraud?[75]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Most libertarians interpret voting even for a suboptimal candidate or policy as an act of political self-defense aimed at minimizing rights violations.
However, some libertarians (such asagorists) employ non-voting as a political tactic; following 19th-centuryindividualist anarchists likeLysander Spooner andBenjamin Tucker, they consider voting an immoral concession to state legitimacy.[citation needed] Others who champion the concept ofrational ignorance view voting as an impractical and irrational behavior on acost-benefit analysis. Other more moderate libertarians abstain from voting from a perception that the current system is broken or out of touch.
Until fairly recently,American libertarians have allied politically with modernconservatives overeconomic issues andgun laws while they are more prone to ally withliberals on othercivil liberties issues andnon-interventionism. As conservatives increasingly favorprotectionism overfree and open trade, and progressives increasingly favor restrictions onspeech deemed offensive or disinformative, the popular characterization of libertarian policy aseconomically conservative andsocially liberal has been rendered less meaningful. Libertarians may choose to vote for candidates of other parties depending on the individual and the issues they promote.Paleolibertarians have a long-standing affinity withpaleoconservatives in opposingUnited States interventions and promotingdecentralization andcultural conservatism.
Libertarians generally agree on the desirability of rapid and fundamental changes in power dynamics and institutional structures,[citation needed] but may disagree on the means by which such changes might be achieved. Some right-libertarians strongly oppose violentrevolution as unethical and counterproductive. However, a growing number of right-libertarians, inspired by theFounding Fathers of the United States, believe in revolution as a justified means to counter what they see as a corrupt government.[citation needed] Many left-libertarians, especially anarchists and socialists, regard the state to be at the definitional center ofstructural violence, directly or indirectly preventing people from meeting their basic needs, calling for violence as self-defense and seeing violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society, mainly to counteract the violence inherent in both capitalism and government. Some on the left have also come to believe that violence, especiallyself-defense, is justified as a way toinspire further social upheaval which could lead to asocial revolution); others argue in favor of anon-violent revolution through a process ofdual power, and pacifists see the concept of thegeneral strike as the great revolutionary weapon.Market anarchists of aleft-wing persuasion, such as agorists, also advocate various forms ofnonviolent resistance,tax resistance orevasion, public acts of civicdisloyalty anddisobedience,counter-economics, and subversiveblack market.[citation needed]
The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism.
In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is an excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... 'Libertarians'... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
We advocate a liberty and private property rights approach to the issue of abortion.
Because libertarians view things through the lens of property rights and the [non-aggression principle] NAP, it is not uncommon for them to regard an unwanted pregnancy as a situation of trespass within the womb (p. 3).
The woman who no longer wishes to 'house' the fetus within her body is under no obligation to do so. She may evict this interloper from her 'premises.' She must do so in the gentlest manner possible, for the trespasser in this case is certainly not guilty of mens rea.
The 'gentlest manner possible' in this case requires that the mother notify the authorities to see if they will take over responsibilities for keeping alive this very young human being. However, if the 'gentlest manner possible' implies the death of this very young human being, then so be it: the mother still has that right.
It is only the lethal (or otherwise debilitating) eviction of a fetus during a normal pregnancy that departurism views as discordant with gentleness and, thus, a violation of the NAP.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable. The following sources cite anarchism as a political philosophy:Paul Mclaughlin (2007).Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 59.ISBN 978-0754661962.R. Johnston (2000).The Dictionary of Human Geography. Cambridge, England: Blackwell Publishers. p. 24.ISBN 0631205616.