|
It may come as no surprise that I am unsympathetic to the libertarian position. I find it intellectually incoherent - things like the free market cannot exist separate from a stable society, the underpinnings of the free market (things like contract and property rights) cannot exist absent some form of stable government to enforce them; the infrastructure needed for businesses to operate includes not just a stable legal environment but a civic infrastructure such as transportation systems, sewer and water systems, utilities and so on - all of which require a basic, stable society, one which is created by a stable government. When libertarians say things like "If you want a fire department, contract for one" my response is "We already did. We created a the government." More practical libertarians wish to limit government to an absolute minimum of activities - usually those specifically mentioned in the Constitution (for all intents and purposes this usually involves the military and little else).
|
| Libertarians like to claim that theirs is "classical liberalism" but I believe that is flawed. Classical liberals rightly worried about government power and wished to reduce the threat of government abuse of power, but were not hostile to government itself as are modern libertarians. Libertarian hostility to government action is rooted in a classical liberal idea - that governments can be tyrannical. Rather than adopting the liberal response of dividing and limiting government power, libertarians have drifted into outright hostility toward government.
The notion of mimimizing government seems to lie at the heart of libertarianism. By contrast, totalitarians and authoritarians (both left and right) seek to use government to impose their values on other citizens. Many American conservatives use anti-government language influenced by libertarians but favor using government to coerce obedience to moral standards (i.e. outlawing abortion, various forms of sex). Libertarians embrace the idea of individual liberty and admirably defend it against government but their solutions are too simplistic. If you reudce governmental power, for instance, you have reduced the threat of tyranny by government but you have created a space in which nongovernment institutions can become tyrranical - whether those are churches or corporations is irrelevant.
Paradoxically, the free market so broadly supported by many libertarians is actually a source of danger to libertarian ideas of individual freedom. The logic of the market encourages monopolies (and variations on monopolies where large corporations agree to not compete with each other in certain markets), which creates a threat to the functioning of both the free market and individual freedoms. If a corporation has sole control of some product or service in some area, then they are in a position to deprive citizens of liberty. A government strong enough to break monopolies and to insure economic competition serves the cause of freedom. Libertarian dedication to a weak or minimal government actually serves to frustrate rather than advance the cause of individual freedom.
As it has evolved over time, liberalism has come to embrace a broader concept of the role of government - one that includes government intervening in markets and providing a social safety net - because the real world has demonstrated that a weak government invites abuse of power by nongovernment institutions. Government serving the cause of freedom will at times seek to reduce the power of corporations, churches and so on. Such actions may violate a strict free market ideology, but in fact serve a broader good. By freeing persons of the tyrrany of churches and corporations, a strong (and competent) government aids those persons in seeking and maximizing their personal freedom.
From a liberal perspective (and this is an argument Amartya Sen makes) a truly democratic government provides a bulwark against tyranny from both governments and nongovernmental forces. To put it other terms, if you believe in individual freedom, a fully functioning democracy is your best bet. And if you believe in democracy, a liberal democracy is more likely to advance the cause of individual freedom than is an illiberal or plebiscite democracy. A liberal, democratic government which must be responsive to the needs of the people and protective of our individual rights is a central vision of modern liberalism. While libertarians deny that government plays a positive role in freedom, liberalism insists that freedom is impossible without democratic government.
Finally, a democratic government is indispensable if one wishes to maximize human freedom and liberty. |
STATE BLOGS
