The following text is based on
my March 2021 video “Dismantling 13 Myths About Libertarians”,
which can be viewed at the following
address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIgBr5KH2fI
Table
of Contents
Myth #1: Libertarians support segregation,
discrimination, and neo-Confederalism
Myth #2: Libertarians are
social Darwinists
Myth #3: Libertarians hate the poor
Myth #4:
Libertarians hate unions
Myth #5: All libertarians are capitalist
and right-wing
Myth #6: All libertarians are
anarcho-capitalists
Myth #7: All libertarians support corporations
and corporate control
Myth #8: Libertarians want to run the
government like a business, and privatization, and that's bad
Myth
#9: Libertarians support free markets because they want no
regulation
Myth #10:
Libertarians support free trade because they want to exploit workers
Myth
#11: All libertarians oppose cooperative enterprises
Myth #12: All
libertarians oppose government involvement in health care
Myth
#13: All libertarians worship the Constitution
Myth #14:
Libertarians support limited government because they want chaos
instead of order
Content
Myth #1: Libertarians
support segregation, discrimination, and
neo-Confederalism.
False!
Libertarians have acquired
a reputation of supporting discrimination and segregation, and even
of being neo-Confederates. But this is not the case.
Libertarians' views on private
property, voluntarism, political independence, and the actions of
Lincoln's government during the Civil War, have led to this
misconception.
Neo-Confederalism
Libertarians do
not want to revive the
Confederacy. We are,
however, willing to entertain
the very controversial possibility that states' rights did some good
during the Civil War, and that confederations are sometimes good
because they increase political independence.
That
is not to say that breaking away from the Union and forming a new
federation was necessarily an appropriate use of the 10th
Amendment (especially not if the result would have been to preserve
slavery).
After
all, the State of Wisconsin used Jeffersonian nullification to
contest Lincoln's national government's authority to return escaped
former slaves to their previous masters. Lincoln enforced the
Fugitive Slave Act for the first year or two of the Civil War. So,
for Wisconsin, states' rights helped fight
slavery.
For at least ten years, libertarians - who know the
words of Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass - have been
criticizing the national government for failing to provide freed
slaves with full liberation.
Douglass pointed out that the material quality of life, for freed
slaves, did not rise much after “emancipation”. Spooner argued
that the Union north had merely changed slaves' venue, from chattel
slaves to political slaves. Spooner pointed to language in the
Constitution and the 14th
Amendment which suggested that membership in the national government
should be a choice, and that the “perpetual union” is not meant
to impose an obligation upon the framers' posterity to keep a
Constitution that no longer works.
The last thing
that liberal mainstream media want to hear is that Libertarians are
criticizing Abraham Lincoln for being too pro-slavery, or for saying
he'd consider keeping slavery as long as the Union stayed intact.
Libertarians are
not being called neo-Confederates because they are racist.
Libertarians are being called neo-Confederates because they are
pointing out the racism of both the Democratic and Republican
parties, which they have gotten away with for over 150
years.
Discrimination and Segregation
Libertarians may accept some forms of
discrimination, but only when it is voluntary, and when it is not
done by the government. The public government is supposed to include
everyone, so the government should never discriminate. But neither
should supposedly “private” businesses which are receiving public
money.
If a business wants to announce to the whole community
that it is intolerant, and chooses to deprive itself of a whole group
of potential customers, then that business should be prepared to
suffer the loss of profit and damage to their reputation which are
bound to result from that decision. When it comes to businesses that
choose to discriminate, libertarians want them to be unable to lobby
the government for handouts of taxpayer money, due to their poor
business decision. If a business discriminates against the same
public whose funds are helping it stay afloat, then that would not be
an appropriate use of public funds, it would be legal discrimination
by government, and it would be impossible to argue that such a
business could still be called “private”. As such, a business
like that should not be treated like an ordinary private
entity.
Discrimination is viewed as a bad thing because it has
been used to hurt racial minorities. But discrimination can be a
positive thing too, as in having a discriminating taste. We
discriminate every day, just by making choices; in what we buy, what
we wear, what we eat, and whom we choose as our friends and mates. We
value some things, while not valuing others. We rank things according
to how much we like them, or how much we would like to have them.
Discrimination that hurts no one, happens every day.
Libertarians
support the right of private property ownership, which carries with
it the right to choose who may enter. That right is unalienable in
private residences. But discrimination on commercial property and
discrimination by government are different. Discrimination by the
public government is never acceptable, because the government is
supposed to be inclusive. But privacy, and the privacy of private
property, are by nature exclusive. Some
level of exclusion and discrimination are to be expected, or else
there's nothing about the property that is really “private” (or
proper to the owner).
It's hard to guarantee that more private
property won't lead to some. And more widespread ownership of private
property will inevitably lead to more exclusion from said parcels of
property. And arguably, that exclusion is a form of “segregation”,
because both result in a separation of two groups of people from one
another. But as long as that separation occurs on peaceful,
voluntary, and mutually beneficial terms – and everyone understands
the rules – then there's no reason why more private property
ownership wouldn't lead to more freedom, at least in the long term.
Each
different parcel of property could be operated under such a wide
variety of rules, that people would have an easier time finding a
parcel of land run under a set of rules that they think they can live
by. When only a few people own private property, there are few places
where people can find privacy. But the economic school of thought
known as Distributism holds that the more private property owners
there are, the more prosperity there will be.
Additionally,
Libertarians have noted that there are public institutions which
discriminate (like the Congressional Black Caucus) and which have
historically have discriminated (like the military). While business
interests were among those who lobbied for Jim Crow laws, it was only
through government power that those laws were enforced. The only way
that those laws could have
been enforced, would have been either by the police, by mobs of
Klansmen operating outside of the law, or by private security guards.
Libertarians oppose all uses of violence to enforce
discrimination.
Theoretically, members of the public, who enter
truly private property, do so upon invitation from the owner. If “the
owner” is multiple people, or a mix of private and public owners,
then the right to decide who can enter, must be negotiated.
Libertarians' hesitancy to reject discrimination completely, does not
emanate from a desire to exclude, deprive, nor insult people on the
basis of race or ethnicity; it comes from a desire to keep the public
sector public, and to keep private property private.
If a
business wants to discriminate, then it must give up all public funds
and public utilities which it is using, and its activities must not
substantially affect interstate commerce.
Myth
#2: Libertarians are social Darwinists
False!
Libertarians
have acquired a reputation of not caring about people, and not
wanting to help them. That is false.
Libertarians are not against helping
people; we would just rather help people in a way that does not get
the government involved, because that tends to take a long time, and
become costly and complicated. Libertarians support direct action and
mutual aid as alternatives to getting the state involved in your
problems.
Whether we want the government to help someone, usually
depends on what kind of help they need, and which level of government
you are talking about.
One aspect of social Darwinism, which
libertarians are thought to support, is competition.
Libertarians
support competition, but only because it provides us with diversity,
a wide range of choices, and quality. Price competition, for example,
is valuable, because it allows a wide variety of people to offer
goods or services, which generally results in prices going down, due
to competition to offer low prices. As long as quality and safety are
not sacrificed, to offer those low prices, then this can only help
workers and poor people afford what they need more
easily.
Libertarians do not support “competition for
competition's sake”. We recognize that competition has a bad name,
because it often results in monopoly, permanent rewards, and abuses.
But we also know that competition would not result in monopoly, if it
were not for the monopolistic state creating those
unnatural monopolies, by unduly intervening in economics and in
production.
If competitors get a permanent reward
- such a business license or a patent, each of which are forms of
temporary monopolies – then there is no more competition. The
business license, and the relevant professional regulations, function
as an excuse for the government to shut down all competitors which
are not compliant, and as an excuse for the government to pass new
laws that shield grandfathered-in businesses from competition and
lawsuits.
Libertarians support competition, but it must be
voluntary, and nobody should be forced into it. Libertarians support
voluntary competition just as much as we support voluntary
cooperation. Free markets require both. We cannot end forced labor,
or monopolies, until people who want voluntary competition and people
who want voluntary cooperation are working together, or at least can
agree to live and let live.
Libertarians do not want the poor
to die, and we certainly don't want to force people who are unable to
do physical work, into working and competing. We oppose forced and
coerced labor in all its forms. But we also recognize that even
disabled people, children, the elderly, and the sick are sometimes
capable of doing productive and/or societally valuable work.
Libertarians support the right of
retarded people to bargain and unionize for higher wages, if that is
what they want to do. We support the right of communities to
institute basic income programs, as long as they are responsibly
funded, and don't force anyone to participate who doesn't want to.
We support the unlimited right to
donate funds and resources to needy, sick, hungry, and dying people,
regardless of what the government says about where and when you are
allowed to give things away to people who need them.
We support people's right to do as
little or as much work as they please, to sell their labor for as
much or as little as they please, and to work chiefly for themselves
if they don't want to have a boss. We don't want people who are
incapable of working full-time to die or lose health insurance; we
want to make insurance and long hours less necessary by stabilizing
and increasing the value of the dollar, thus raising wages.
Libertarians love helping the poor and
needy; it's just that we just know that, when the state promises to
help, it is usually trying to seduce people with false hope, and lull
them into a false sense of security. It is better to minimize
government involvement in helping the needy. We don't need some
monolithic entity endorsing all the companies with licenses, and
limiting people's ability to unionize. We don't need the state
establishing a minimum wage, because it functions as a suggestion as
to what wages are acceptable, causing the prevailing wage to hover
just above the minimum wage.
The poor and rich alike, the disabled
and able alike, and the working and non-working alike, should engage
in voluntary cooperation to demand better treatment, when and if they
work. The right to refrain from working should be protected, in part
because it functions as an assertion that “my labor is so valuable
that I won't even consider the low wages that are being offered to me
or the average worker right now.”
The real bargaining power is
in the hands of the workers; not the unions, the union bosses, the
N.L.R.B., the Department of labor, nor the state.
Myth
#3: Libertarians hate the poor
False!
Libertarians do
not hate the poor.
We want to help the poor become rich (for those of them who want that). We want to help the poor acquire property (if they want it). We want
to use price competition to help reduce the cost of living.
We want total equality under the law,
such that the rights of the poor to bring lawsuits, and participate
in the political process, are protected.
The fact that libertarians do not want
to help poor people remain unproductive, and politically and
economically dependent, is the reason people want to make us look
like we hate the poor.
Myth #4: Libertarians hate
unions
False!
Many libertarians do not think that
unions have improved society, but many other libertarians disagree.
In general, to libertarians, private-sector unions are more favorable
than public-sector unions, because we appreciate that private-sector unions are private-sector entities.
Still, these unions are not fully private, because they have to abide by public government laws that dictate that a majority of workers must support a union before it represents workers, and then that union must represent all workers, and is assumed to represent and help all workers even if it doesn't.
Libertarians support private-sector union activity, as long as it is voluntary. But we are not sympathetic towards most public-sector unions, because we want to limit the unchecked growth of the public sector, which is expensive.
We do not want public-sector unions to
grow the government beyond its constitutional strictures. For example, we do not want public-sector unions to demand that there be a national department of fish stocks, if there are already adequate fish stock regulations in all 50 states, and growing the public sector is not necessary to solve any problem. Additionally, libertarians don't want public-sector unions to use their members' money (from union dues) to support political
speech or campaigns which not all of their members support.
But
when it comes to private-sector unions, many libertarians actually
recognize that these unions need more
freedom! As long as a union collects dues voluntarily, then there
should be no limit on the ability of a union to go on strike, or
boycott. But their ability to do so, is being limited now, by the
National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.), a board of appointed
bureaucrats which functions as a “Supreme Court of labor”, and is
supported by Democrats and Republicans.
The fewer public-sector unions there are, the more room there will be for private-sector unions to flourish; as private-sector entities, in the markets, and engaging in strikes and boycotts with minimal interference by government.
There
are libertarians, and
strong supporters of unions alike, whom are open to repealing the
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (which limits secondary labor actions, and
effectively makes the general strike illegal, or by permission only).
There are libertarians and leftists
who support eliminating barriers to wildcat strikes, and who are open
to abolishing the N.L.R.B..
Libertarians do not hate unions; at
least, not any more than leftists hate unions for allowing themselves
to be weakened, bought off, or compromised. Many libertarians
acknowledge that workers – not unions, but workers – built this
country, and fought for the 40-hour work week, and so on.
Libertarians and leftists, in fact, share many of the same critiques
of police unions.
Libertarians
do not hate all
unions. We just oppose the collection of union dues by force or by
law, the unnecessary politicization of unions and workplaces, the
employment of people by unconstitutional government programs, and the
suppression of workers' rights and freedoms for the benefit and
reputation of union bosses and Democratic politicians.
Myth
#5: All libertarians are capitalist and right-wing
False!
About
half of the Libertarian Party is capitalist-leaning, and many members
of the party hold socially conservative views. But about one-quarter
to one-third of the party is left-leaning on either social issues,
economic issues, or both. The party has over 40 causes, at least 10
or 15 of which are left-leaning, the most prominent of these being
the Libertarian Socialist Caucus.
While the Libertarian Party and
the libertarian movement may have adherents who support socialist
economics, libertine social views, capitalism, or social
conservatism, what they all agree on is that nobody has the right to
use force, coercion, or fraud to get other people to agree, or to
think or live differently. Only conversation, argumentation, and
peaceful discourse can solve social and economic conflicts.
Even for those libertarians who are
staunch capitalists, we would never want to force anybody to
participate in capitalism, such as by forcing them to buy from any
particular seller. But the current system allows your money to be
legally stolen (or at least extorted) from you, and given as
subsidies and bailouts to companies with whom you might not even want
to transact. We have no ability to fully boycott a company, until it
is no longer publicly subsidized with our taxpayer dollars. That is
how the free market would protect the rights of capitalists (if
they're real entrepreneurs who want to earn their
living), and people on the left who have little ability to
boycott.
Libertarians oppose “crony capitalism”, which
is distinct from capitalism and free markets. We do not want any
corporation or enterprise to be able to lobby the government for your
taxpayer money. We do not want the government taxing you in a way
that forces you to generate a surplus (which makes you into a
capitalist). Most libertarians would agree that free markets, and the
right to choose which economic system you want to participate in, are
much more important and beneficial than making everyone submit to an
economic system that favors the owners of capital.
Myth
#6: All libertarians are anarcho-capitalists
False!
The
Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement, are made up of an
alliance of minarchists and anarchists. Minarchists want limited
government and minimal government, and see the Libertarian Party as
the best way to achieve that.
The anarchists, however, are skeptical
about government altogether. Some anarchists see the L.P. as helpful,
while others see the party as an obstacle
to freedom, and prefer to work entirely outside of partisan
politics.
Some libertarian anarchists want anarchy
overnight, while others work with the L.P. because they want to limit
and decentralize government more and more until there is no
government left.
But we all agree to put our
differences aside, and to work together to achieve freedom, because
we all want to go in the same direction; “more government, less
freedom” as the L.P. slogan says.
Some of the anarchists
describe themselves as Anarcho-Capitalists, it's true. But not all
people who want a stateless society that features markets, would
describe themselves in this way. There are market-anarchists,
Agorists, market-oriented social anarchists, market syndicalists, and
others.
Outside of the libertarian movement, the public
perception of Anarcho-Capitalism, is that markets would go totally
unregulated. That is not the case. Abolishing government would
certainly end the regulation of businesses and markets by
government, but consumers,
workers, and managers of companies, would still play a role in how
the production and distribution of goods and services are kept safe,
healthy, and transparent.
As explained above, the Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947, and business subsidies, are artificial rules that
government enforces to limit our freedom to boycott. This is a way in
which the consumers' power to participate in the regulation of the
products they (might) use, is hindered. And for no good reason, other
than that coordinated boycotts arguably hinder production, and weaken
the country, which are dubious.
If workers managed
workplaces, and negotiated directly with consumers, then managers and
external political governance would become unnecessary. The middlemen
– the politicians, the bosses, the union negotiators, and the
taxation – would all become unnecessary. The workers' only bosses
would be themselves and their clients; not bosses who do no work but
only give orders. Clients would see workers every day, and understand
their needs for decent compensation, and thus the clients would be
less inclined to demand lower prices out of spite for the
unjustifiably high government taxes which made those considerations
seem necessary.
It's not even guaranteed that abolishing the
government would result in capitalism. It's possible that the state's
violence and imperialism are what is allowing American firms to reap
such high profits on the backs of the labor and natural resources of
developing countries. A libertarian who professes to support
capitalism, will likely change his mind, if asked to consider that
the kinds of massive short-term profits which we are seeing under
capitalism – and which capitalism demands - might not be
sustainable without state violence and exploitation.
The
abolition of the state would probably not
result in all firms operating for profit in an unregulated manner.
More likely, it would result in an abundance of non-profits
and cooperatives, competing in a free market, regulated by consumers
and workers negotiating on mutually beneficial terms, with firms
coordinating with each other on voluntary bases.
Anarcho-capitalism
does not mean that people
would be forced to live as capitalists, nor forced to live without a
network of support. But that network of support must not behave like
the state (which legitimizes violence), nor like a mob, forcing
people to pay and become members.
Myth #7: All
libertarians support corporations and corporate
control
False!
The Libertarian Party accepts
corporate donations. And libertarians tend to support corporations in
general. But the moment a corporation begins to become “cronyist”,
like by lobbying the government for subsidies that are rightfully
your money and your earnings,
then what they are doing is no longer regarded as fully free-market
activity.
Many libertarians may be supportive of corporations,
but they are more supportive of corporations which are not chartered
by governments, than those which are
chartered by governments. Libertarians may support corporations, but
not state-owned corporations, which are ostensibly operated for state
profit, but still distort prices and rig the market.
Libertarians
do not want the government creating businesses. We know that
government doesn't create jobs, nor wealth; the people
do. Libertarians want all
enterprises to survive and thrive on their own. A
lack of public willingness to support a business or industry
indicates that it should go bankrupt, not
that it should be bailed out and rescued.
While plenty of
libertarians have positive things to say about corporations, none of
us tolerate the use of the law to protect corporations from legal
responsibility for their actions. Granting limited liability
corporation (L.L.C.) status to businesses arguably indemnifies their
workers from individual legal responsibility in a way which does not
line up with libertarian values of individual liberty and
responsibility. Additionally, professional regulations can favor
corporations, in a way that can be used to excuse shutting-out their
competitors and putting them out of business.
Corporations can be
destructive to free markets, and can hurt the poor, but only when the
state empowers them to do so.
Awarding licenses,
permits, and patents may seem to add an air of legitimacy to a
business's activities, but they can also serve as licenses to abuse
workers and customers, monopolize resources, and break the law. Even
for those libertarians whom are supporters of corporations, they will
still generally admit that these examples of corporate “property”
as the forms of government-granted privileges and entitlements which
they really are.
Additionally, libertarians do not want
corporate governance.
It is true that
many of us want corporations to be able to donate as much money as
they want to political causes. But it's also true that some people in
the L.P. want limitations on political donations, or even publicly
funded elections. We are a big tent party and have a wide array of
viewpoints.
But libertarians
who do oppose limitations on political donations, at least want the
same for individuals, and for unions, and non-profits, and others. To
these libertarians, government power to limit political donations,
constitutes a privilege to rig elections.
Not everyone who
supports corporations' use of money as free speech, believes that all
expenditures of money are examples of free speech. Spending money on
things that harm people, for example – like hired killing – is
obviously wrong, and not free speech (in part, because the person who
gets killed, loses their freedom of speech).
And not everyone
who supports unlimited corporate donations, believes that
corporations are people. This is a ridiculous idea that was designed
by our critics to make us look foolish. We do not believe that
corporations are people; we just believe that corporations are
composed of people - just like unions and political action committees
are – and thus, should have the same freedom of political speech,
which includes the right to donate money.
Libertarians who
support unlimited political donations by corporations, believe that
shrinking government to within the strictures of the Constitution,
would be a much more effective way to get money out of politics, than
limiting political donations ever would. The more industries, and
sectors of the economy, that the national government can interfere
with – like energy, health, retirement, education, land management,
and environment – the more the District of Columbia will become
like a one-stop shop for lobbyists who work for companies that want
to buy government.
Limiting
the government will mean less regulatory capture of government
agencies for the benefit of criminal companies. The smaller the
government is, the less money is involved, and the fewer
opportunities for corrupt politicians to accept bribes, waste money,
and make money disappear.
We do not want corporate governance (that is, government by the corporations, or ownership of government by corporate interests). We merely acknowledge that government is a corporate entity for financial purposes, admit that corporations are made up of people who can spend their money as they please, and believe that investors in corporations and corporate board members have just as much right to participate in the political process as do people who do not invest.
But as long as the Dollar continues to hold a virtual monopoly on currency in the country, it is also debatable, and should be debated by libertarians, whether the fact that its being a monopoly means it should be publicly regulated as one, outweighs the need to eliminate the currency monopoly.
Myth #8: Libertarians
want to run the government like a business, and privatization, and
that's bad
False!
To most non-libertarians, running the government like a
business is not generally regarded as a good thing. This idea is
associated with austerity, and with cuts to necessary services
related to health, retirement, and aid for the poor.
But libertarians aren't
Republicans, and we're not all capitalists. For those of us who “want
to run the government like a business”, we want to do that because
the government is losing money rapidly.
We're spending more than we take in. If a business did that, it would
go bankrupt.
The only reason
the government has not gone bankrupt, is because it is the only
entity that has the legal authority to compel people to purchase its
goods and services. If an ordinary business used force to compel
people to buy their services, their managers would be arrested.
Running government
like a business, should mean that a government has to provide
affordable prices, and transparency about what it is doing, if it
wants to “stay in business”.
We care more about
affordable government, balanced budgets, and not contracting anymore
new debt, than we do about turning a profit for businesses and
countries that invest in the government. We do not want to make
anyone work more than necessary, for the benefit of the government.
If government is
to provide services for people who are incapable of working, or is to
provide funds to people who are incapable of paying them back, then
that is a recipe to lose the government money. Something must be done
to raise funds. Forcing people to pay taxes, in a way that
discourages them from being productive by confiscating their
earnings, is not a sustainable way to fund programs for the poor and
needy. Such programs must be funded voluntarily.
Libertarians
prefer user fees and voluntary donations as alternatives to the
productivity-sapping taxes that exist today. For people who need
assistance, donations should be collected voluntarily, with nothing
expected in return. For people capable of working, they should pay
user fees to providers of utilities (and, in the view of the
Georgists and Geo-Libertarians, to the community, for the use of
land).
Not all plans to balance budgets come at the expense
of poor people.
To balance the
national budget, the government either needs to decrease spending,
increase taxes, or both. Cutting the welfare system wouldn't be
necessary, if the military and corporate welfare were cut
significantly. Making taxes more efficient might even make cuts
unnecessary altogether (although not many libertarians are interested
in talking about that alternative).
Most libertarians
see social welfare and corporate welfare as forms of legalized theft
which enable each other. Some libertarians don't care whether social
welfare or corporate welfare is reduced first.
Rand
Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, once said that he would not
cut the social safety net by even a dime, until corporate welfare is
eliminated. Most libertarians would agree with Rand Paul's sentiment,
due to the level of damage which American imperialism and crony
capitalism have done to poor people, foreign countries, and the
freedom of the markets.
While the need to reduce government
spending, could and has been used to justify cutting services for the
poor, cuts to the budget do not necessarily have to hurt the poor.
Reducing the total budget of the government, will help reduce the
national debt, which will in turn reduce the likelihood that the
government will depend on the investments of foreign countries and
foreign banks, or coerced labor by its people, in order to generate
the funds needed to pay those debts off.
Admittedly, some
libertarians say “privatize everything”. But that certainly does
not mean that every libertarian wants public assets to be sold off to
the lowest corporate bidder. In fact, when a libertarian says it,
“privatize it” might mean any number of things; from shrinking
government, to removing government from an industry, to shifting the
responsibility to regulate to a non-state (or “private”) actor.
The
type of privatization which libertarians favor, more than this
capitalist model, is for certain national government agencies to
simply cease to exist, leaving its duties in the hands of the states,
the people, and/or the market. For example, the states or communities
would begin to regulate the environment instead of there being an
E.P.A..
Another
example would be if health care and insurance would become totally
non-governmental industries, but with no purchase mandate, and no
restriction on voluntary cooperation in government health programs as
long as they don't compel anyone to pay or participate.
Not
all libertarians support those ideas, but they are examples of how
the national government could be shrunk, while some government duties
become more local, and some sectors of the economy become totally
depoliticized and unregulated by the state.
Unlimited
voluntary boycotts, voluntary recalls, and contracts made between
consumers and workers, would all still exist, however, as would
unlimited lawsuits against companies.
If Obamacare's individual
health insurance purchase mandate comes back, the state will have
authorized health insurance companies to collect health insurance as
a tax on the people. This is in addition to the payroll tax, which is
collected by our employers, as authorized by the state. Libertarians
do not support any form of so-called “privatization” which is
actually just publicization of
private companies; the turning of private companies into tax
collection agencies of the state, as if they were subsidiaries of the
Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.).
No; getting the government out
of your life - “radical privatization”, as Gary Chartier calls it
- is the kind of privatization that libertarians want; not more using
the government to force capitalism and taxation down people's
throats.
Finally,
some libertarians are also open to “privatization to the third
sector”, which occurs when charity organizations, volunteer
organizations, social purpose enterprises, and/pr non-profits, take
up some of the regulation responsibility from government.
Myth #9: Libertarians support free
markets because they want no regulation
False!
Libertarians support
free markets because we want them to empower poor people. We want
everybody to be able to start a business easily, and to own property.
We want people to have total equality of economic opportunity, and we
want the poor to be able to participate in markets, without being
subject to unjustifiable entry or exit fees.
Libertarians want free markets, not
because they would be free of safety and health precautions. We don't
want a market free from checks on worker exploitation. We want free
markets that are called free because they are free from monopolies,
such as statist governments, which monopolize the legitimate use of
violence.
Monopolies – whether public like the
government, or private like corporations – intrinsically distort
the markets they are in. The presence of a monopoly, distorts
pricing, by hindering the ability of small buyers and sellers to
afford to transact, which hinders their ability to participate in
pricing at all. Monopolies cannot help but exclude competitors from
free-market pricing mechanisms.
This allows oligopolies and monopolies
to continue to buy-up resources and labor at low prices, and sell
them for high prices, because of their massive buying and selling
power.
Libertarians want limitations on
monopolies. But it is irrational to think that limitations on
business monopolies will come from a monopolistic state. Just as it
is irrational to assume that a regulation will always help the poor,
solely because it's intended to do so.
One example of a regulation thought to
help the poor, is rent controls. However, while rent controls stop
landlords from gouging poor people, they also stop landlords from
charging high rents to rich people whom they know can afford it.
Libertarians who criticize rent controls, do so not because of hatred
of the poor, nor even out of a desire to treat the poor and rich the
same. They do so because the landlord owns the property, and can
charge what he pleases, until he sells the property to somebody else.
The presence of competition is a more
effective check against monopolies, than the monopolistic state is.
Voluntary competition, as well as voluntary cooperation, must work
together, to help ordinary people and small firms put monopolies out
of business (or at least reduce their massive buying power in order
to make markets fairer).
Professional regulations, business
licenses, L.L.C. status, patents, and other business privileges, just
make it harder for consumers and workers to hold businesses
accountable without going through the state. These privileges thus
function as inhibitions to
the regulation of businesses; that's why it's puzzling to try to
understand that these entitlements were intended as a proof that a
business has been regulated so much that it is now reputable.
The regulated
economy is a farce, libertarians know it, and their criticism of this
problem overlaps with the critiques offered by leftists. Most
libertarians admit that patents last too long and might not even
exist without the state; this is an example of libertarians being
willing to criticize the protection of private property.
Libertarians and
leftists agree that the state and big business are working together
to shield jobs from accountability and from having to be transparent
about their processes. Libertarians' support of free markets
absolutely does not reflect a hatred towards the poor.
Additionally,
libertarians do not
want to have free markets because they want to exploit people and
commit crimes. Hired killing, torture and rape and kidnapping for
hire, theft for profit, and profit through fraud, are all
impermissible, for those who believe in voluntary exchange.
But some
libertarians accept the monetarization of the organ trade, and some
labor that is done under pressure, and the use of non-ideal
currencies such as the U.S. Dollar and Bitcoin. They usually do so
for the sake of convenience, or of achieving fuller employment.
Libertarians
oppose all uses of violence, aggression, coercion, and fraud in
economic transactions, but exploitation is more of a gray area than
those more overt forms of violence. To most libertarians, some level
of “exploitation” is arguably inevitable. Or, if not overt
exploitation, then work which is done begrudgingly. And what work
isn't done somewhat
begrudgingly? If we worked out of the kindness of our hearts, then
the compensation wouldn't be necessary.
If a person
doesn't want to work, or sell an organ, then they shouldn't have to,
and their right to resist should be protected. It is certainly
noteworthy that the places in which the organ trade flourishes, are
usually the same countries in which tyrannical governments are
perpetrating horrific human rights abuses, including labor rights
abuses, political repression, and exploitative levels of taxation.
High taxes and forced labor tend to make a person “willing” to do
things they wouldn't normally do.
If a person sells an organ, or
works for an exploitative company, then it should be asked whether it
is because of the government, or natural circumstances, that it has
come to this. We should therefore not assume that a person's freedom
from exploitation will always be protected, if government regulations
on the matter are present.
Myth
#10: Libertarians support free trade because they want to exploit
workers
False!
Libertarians
support free trade because we want low prices, and simplicity in
trade.
While
inspection fees are arguably necessary, to ensure that people are not
being trafficked and products are safe, tariffs
are not. Tariffs hurt American jobs by imposing a cost upon the
importer to import foreign-made foods.
Many on the left seem to
think that free trade harms workers, and that tariffs help ameliorate
workers' suffering by raising prices on goods made by exploited
labor, leading to a decrease in the purchase of foreign made goods.
Tariffs certainly lead to less purchase of foreign goods (because
people buy less of a foreign good when the attached taxes are high).
But foreign workers do not benefit from tariffs.
Tariffs
– importation fees – are not paid by foreign governments, but by
domestic American importers. The idea that foreign governments pay
the cost of tariffs, is based on the idea that foreign governments
lose business because of tariffs. That may be true, but that is not
necessarily a good thing; certainly not for foreign businesses. The
idea that tariffs help exploited foreign workers, is based on the
idea that foreign countries will respond to tariffs by increasing the
pay and conditions of their workers. That is not usually what
happens. The normal response is more
retaliatory tariffs, which hurt everyone.
Tariffs are not
necessary. If cars and other vehicles must be assembled at plants
located in single countries, out of parts manufactured in multiple
countries, then it is best that the inspection fees be as low as
possible (without sacrificing competence) to cover the cost of
adequate inspection, and tariffs should be zero.
Decreasing
tariffs to zero immediately, without regard as to what other
countries are doing on the topic, will help avoid the deflationary
spirals and risks of hot war which are associated with trade wars. It
will also help reduce the need for politics and politicians to be
involved in trade negotiations.
When
tariffs are zero everywhere, we will no longer have any need for
economists and legislators to work together to determine what rate of
tariff should be imposed on X country for contributing Y percentage
of parts to a car. We will just have a free (aside from inspections),
untaxed flow of goods and capital from one country to another, so
that the cost of assembling vehicles will be limited only by the cost
of transporting the goods to any particular location. This will help
decrease the problems associated with countries competing for jobs
and fighting over outsourcing.
As
Gary Johnson said, “free trade doesn't need a treaty”. Businesses
which generate surpluses, can access international markets, without
the government helping them unload their products (or even start wars
to force goods and services into foreign markets).
When
government plays a minimal role in negotiating trade with foreign
countries, taxes remain low and simple, as does the cost of
transacting and moving goods. Unlimited government involvement in
trade, is what has allowed the proliferation of American-made weapons
into the hands of our rivals.
When
government is too free to decide what is traded internationally, it
begins deciding what sorts of jobs people will work in. Government
should not turn an economy based on production, into one based on
destruction.
Some
liberals and leftists criticize the libertarian support for free
trade and the 10th Amendment, accusing libertarians of
wanting U.S.-Mexico-style borders around every state. Of course
libertarians don't want that! That would hinder the free flow of
commerce.
Libertarians recognize that state borders, and the
states' powers to intervene in the economy, presents a threat of
monopolies and high prices to the people. Libertarians support free
trade out of a desire to allow labor and capital to freely flow
across all political borders, so that we have a maximally free
economy, and a limited government where no state is permitted to rig
the market in its own favor.
While
libertarians tend to support free markets and free trade, the
Libertarian Party platform does not order anyone to support
capitalism, nor does it declare that the party's official economic
standpoint is capitalism. However, it does endorse “the free
market”.
The
following text is quoted from the preamble of the Libertarian Party
platform, adopted in 2018: “People should not be forced to
sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They
should be left free by government to deal with one another as free
traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible
with the protection of individual rights, is the free
market.”
Still, though, this does not mean that anybody could
or should be forced to participate in a free market in a
libertarian society. Numerous libertarian theorists - such as Gustave
de Molinari, other market-anarchists, the panarchists, and pro-market
individualist anarchists - have remarked that total free markets
would result in a free market in governance, which carries with it
the freedom to choose which economic system one participates in. What
system or systems we choose might even change on more often than a
daily basis, as we transact with people of different economic
persuasions on different terms.
This
natural freedom to choose an economic system, and opposition to too
much government interference in markets, can lead to several
different conclusions, in terms of “acceptably libertarian”
stances on trade: 1) total statelessness; 2) free trade; or 3)
alter-globalization. I consider myself a libertarian who supports
alter-globalization, because I believe that society should respect
the free will of all living things, workers and animals and the Earth
alike. When workers and plant resources are treated with respect,
workers are fully compensated, and production can occur with minimal
harm to the environment. Most importantly, cooperatives and
non-profit entrepreneurs flourish, and consumers and workers become
better able to take part in the negotiation of trade deals.
When
consumers and workers and non-profit firms have economic power, they
become able to regulate the economy, better than the violent state
ever could. The more economic power ordinary people have, and the
more free untaxed access to markets, the less government regulation
of the economy is necessary. All government usually offers is
protections and indemnifications for its favored cronies.
Libertarians
favor free trade, not to help government-chartered corporations
monopolize resources without the consent of the people who own or
live near those resources. We favor free trade, not in order to
privatize public resources. Libertarians favor free trade because we
want everyone to participate in mutually beneficial voluntary
exchange whenever they decide to engage in transactions. Those who
don't want to trade, shouldn't be required to. Libertarians support
both the freedom to trade and the freedom not to trade.
Libertarians
want anyone who wants to trade, to be on an equal playing field, when
it comes to deciding for how much to buy or sell their goods or
services. Most libertarians are well aware that the policies marketed
to us as “free trade” were not only detrimental to the American
economy, but also were conducted by government.
Libertarians
respect free trade, but national sovereignty of foreign countries is
important to us too; as we don't want to start trade wars or hot
wars. Any libertarian who becomes aware that policies labeled “free
trade” are depriving people in foreign countries of the ability to
decide how much of their countries' resources should be public and
how much should be private, should accept that “free trade”
policies erode at national sovereignty, and oppose them on those
grounds.
Simply put, most libertarians understand that “free
trade” policies like N.A.F.T.A. have been harmful. But we also know
that governments are largely to blame, as are international
organizations in which there is arguably no constitutional authority
for the U.S. to participate. We also know that “free trade” is
not real free trade.
Free trade doesn't need a treaty.
Myth
#11: All libertarians oppose cooperative
enterprises
False!
Libertarians do not oppose
cooperative enterprises, nor do we all think they are “socialist”.
Most libertarians support cooperative enterprises just as much as
they support “profit-sharing” (although that is perhaps not the
best way to explain what actually happens in a cooperative; the
would-be
“profits” are shared and redistributed).
Libertarians support
the rights of cooperative enterprises to voluntarily associate with
one another, and to cooperate and merge as they please, with minimal
or no taxation involved. Cooperatives and E.L.M.F.s (Egalitarian
Labor-Managed Firms) should be just as free to participate in the
economy as any other firm, such as a for-profit business or a sole
proprietorship.
Some libertarians even agree that
cooperatives help “tie people to profits”. Gary Johnson believes
that cooperatives help align the future success of a company with the
prosperity of its workers.
There
is even such a thing as a cooperative corporation; for example, the
Mondragon Corporation in Spain. Libertarians support whatever
industrial combinations the people can conjure, as long as all of the
work is voluntary, and as long as the state is minimally involved or
not involved at all.
If
more “democracy in the workplace” means worker self-governance,
instead of state control of workplaces on behalf of a union supported
by a majority of the workers, then libertarians should be able to
support it. Especially if, by governing the workplace adequately,
regulations by the state become unnecessary.
A
libertarian who believes that companies and markets can govern
themselves, should be able to admit that cooperative
companies can govern themselves as well (as can direct-democratic and
participatory-democratic organizations which aim at doing without
markets entirely).
There is no reason why cooperative
enterprises cannot be part of a future voluntary economy.
Libertarians who favor low-risk investments over high-risk
investments have every reason to bank at credit unions, or to work
for (or invest in) cooperatives and non-profits.
That's
because these sorts of firms do not demand high short-term profits,
which carry with them risks such as economic, industrial, and
technological interruptions that are so severe that people often
consider onerous levels of government regulation in order to
modulate.
As long as the cooperation is voluntary, the work is
not coerced, and nobody can be forced to cooperate with the state or
any other violent entity, cooperation is perfectly compatible with
market systems, economic freedom, and limited government.
Myth
#12: All libertarians oppose government involvement in health
care
False!
The Libertarian Socialist Caucus, and
probably several other left-leaning caucuses within the Libertarian
Party, support Medicare for All.
Granted, most libertarians do
not belong to the Libertarian Socialist Caucus. And most libertarians
oppose more
government involvement in health care. But still, libertarians may
support some level
of government regulation of health care.
For example, lowering
the duration of medical patents. This will reduce medical prices, and
increase the accessibility of medical goods. The patent power was
duly authorized by the people, to the national government, and
reducing the terms of patents is a limited-government solution that
most libertarians agree would be a perfectly constitutional and
market-freeing method to alleviate high medical prices (and alleviate
the stifling of medical innovation).
While most libertarians
want to decrease government involvement in health care, most will
admit that there are legal and free-market approaches that can be
pursued without much political controversy. Some libertarians may
even support a higher level of involvement in health care, but
usually with the stipulation that the level of government involvement
in other
industries
be decreased at the same time.
As
long as a health care plan is constitutional, affordable,
sufficiently funded, and transparent, then there's a chance that
libertarians would support it. If the program has a sunset clause,
and will expire at some point, even better. Libertarians are
open
to compromise on this issue.
Rand
Paul has even proposed a four-point plan to achieve low-cost health
insurance by empowering cooperatives. If unions, cooperatives,
industry trade groups, non-profits and charities, etc.,
were all free to pool their health insurance costs together, and
cooperate with other cooperatives (creating a syndicate), then that
will help the employees of such firms to economize. It will help the
poor, and struggling workers, to pool their purchasing power, and
leverage it against the massive selling power of the large health
insurance companies.
Empowering
cooperatives can thus reduce the costs of medicine. The pooling of
purchasing power does not always have to be done by the state to
achieve the maximum effect; this just creates a monopoly, which,
because it is a monopoly, supposedly has to be regulated by, and can
only be regulated by, another monopoly, the state. It is absurd to
consider this a better model than cooperatives cooperating with each
other voluntarily to form into a large syndicate. As long as that
syndicate doesn't force any person or firm to join it, doesn't beg
the state for help, and doesn't try to completely monopolize the
purchase of a good or service, no rules of the free market are
broken.
Many libertarians, too, sympathize with liberals and
leftists (such as Dennis Kucinich and Jimmy Dore) who say that the
states should develop their own universal health insurance systems,
if the national government will not. However, the continued
enforcement of Obamacare (P.P.A.C.A.) will probably continue to make
it difficult for states to do that. That's because of the power
struggle and fight over jurisdiction which are bound to result from
the simultaneous existence of national and state health programs.
Whether
health becomes a matter of national jurisdiction or state
jurisdiction, most libertarians would agree that that should be
spelled out in the Constitution, if there are to be proper checks and
balances, and separation of powers, and if there is to be any
transparency about where the authority to regulate health comes
from.
Myth
#13: All libertarians worship the Constitution
False!
The
Constitution is important for libertarians (or at least the
politically active ones, such as Libertarian Party members) because
it spells out, and distinguishes the duties of the states and the
national government, while listing some (but not all) of our rights.
The
Constitution limits both national and state governments to some
extent, while setting up a situation in which the people and the
various levels of government – and also the three branches of
government (legislative, executive, and judicial) – all check each
other.
The
Constitution also checks the power of monopolies, by providing that
very few industries are monopolies (namely, law, military, lands necessary for defense, money, mail, and just a few other
things).
Many libertarians view the Constitution as useful,
and as a helpful guide that at least shows us where the political
conversation should start regarding whether to grow or shrink the
government. But at the same time, most libertarians would admit that
the Constitution is flawed, and can and should be improved.
Some
libertarians believe that the Articles of Confederation would be a
better way to run the country.
Most
libertarians would admit, if asked how to create an ideal free or
libertarian society, that free markets, free enterprise, free trade,
voluntary association, voluntary exchange, and limited or minimal
government, are much more important guiding principles than the
arrangement dictated by the Constitution.
Most libertarians
admire the Constitution - especially its guarantees of due process of
law - but almost all of us are willing to criticize it as well. We
would not be libertarians if we did not respect the rights of others
to live outside the Constitution, or in a different parallel legal
system operating under the Constitution, as long as they do not force
anybody to participate in their political arrangement, and do not
force anybody to foot the bill for the expenses of that system
without their knowledge and consent.
Moreover, libertarians who
support the Constitution, do
not
all support keeping it exactly the way it is. Any part of the
Constitution can be changed or removed through the amendment process.
Profound changes to the Constitution could be made, constitutionally,
if people only understood how the Constitution works, and how to pass
an amendment (which requires ¾ of the states' support).
If
only people were unafraid of the racist stigma that is unnecessarily
attached to using constitutional methods, we could amend the
Constitution so that it loosens the national and state governments'
strangleholds on the people, their productivity, and their freedom of
expression.
Myth
#14: Libertarians support limited government because they want chaos
instead of order
False!
Libertarians support limited
government because the state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of
violence.
We
must limit the use of violence, and strive to make it illegitimate.
This requires us to limit government, through limiting the use of
force, and decreasing the use of compulsion and threats and
intimidation to convince people to behave a certain way.
Until
private law and personal law develop to the point where criminal law no
longer exists as a matter of public law and public concern, and the state's virtual monopoly on arbitration and
resolution of disputes is diminished, the legitimate use of violence
by the state, to arrest people and compel them to testify and stand
trial, will be viewed as necessary.
Because it is necessary to
limit monopolies, it is necessary to limit the state, because it is a
monopoly, and because the state's role as a monopoly means that the
state cannot be trusted to regulate, punish, nor abolish other
monopolies.
Through
limiting the government's powers to create, charter, and empower
these monopolies in the first place, we will limit the ability of
monopolies and oligopolies to flourish in any more than the three
main industries which our Constitution initially allowed national
government monopolies (i.e.,
money, mail, and military).
Finally, some libertarians, such
as myself, support limited government, out of a desire to keep the
law easy enough to understand, keep criminal charges easy enough to
defend oneself against without the help of an attorney, and keep
taxes and laws simple enough that ordinary people can understand them
and propose new laws, without getting professional politicians
involved.
Lastly, if government becomes too complicated, then it
will become too complicated for school children to understand, and
even for college students to understand. The United States is one of
only two countries in the world that requires a post-secondary-level
education (i.e., more
than four years) to become an attorney (the other being Japan).
We
need limited government and libertarianism now, because we are
heading to a point where we cannot teach children – or even adults
– how
the government works, because it doesn't
work anymore. The government has become like Goliath, and has become
imperialistic not only towards countries but towards sectors of the
economy.
The
Supreme Court has allowed Congress to hand over its powers to the
president, which have enabled the president to place more and more
sectors of the economy under his desk, by establishing new
departments (of health, of retirement, of welfare, of education, of
the environment, etc.).
Too much of the economy, the wealth, and the resources, have become
politicized. This needs to stop.
While people on the left might
not necessarily agree that a smaller overall government budget, or
shrinking certain governments, are the solution to our problems. But
people on the left can agree with libertarians that many governments
are corrupt, and that certain departments and positions should have
their powers and budgets curtailed, while others shouldn't.
There
is no reason why the anti-corruption left and the anti-corruption
right should not have this conversation about how much limitation of
government and privatization – and what types of them, and where –
may be needed to solve problems like too much government involvement
in economic and productive affairs (or in social mores as well, for
that matter).
I hope that other libertarians agree with me when I
say that a more perfect separation of powers will result, if we
strive towards a more perfect separation of politics, economy, and
society.
Libertarianism will not create chaos, but a simpler order. To limit government is to limit the legitimate and accepted use of force, which is akin to the right of a mob to riot, or the right of a highwayman to rob you. Government is like fire; it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master. Just as liberty is the mother - not the daughter - of order.
Peaceful social order comes from distinguishing the public from the private, and from people knowing the rules or the law, and being reasonably able to abide by them and by their promises, depending on where they are. Peaceful order cannot, and does not, arise from the state using violence and compulsion to bring people who fundamentally disagree with each other, into confrontation, and forcing them to negotiate their dearest-held principles away for the sake of compromise.
This is nothing but forced cooperation, and it is anathema to everything that both libertarian capitalists and anarcho-cooperativists hold dear. Voluntary cooperation and voluntary association are the natural forms of order which allow societies to function in both sufficient freedom and sufficient fairness.
Libertarians are not opposed to order; only to unnatural and arbitrary forms of order, which make association impossible, without the permission of a violent organization. This organization, the state, has made itself the only entity which is allowed to commit crimes in the name of the public. In the process, it has made the public into a scapegoat for its crimes in the process, while also making itself the only entity capable of building public works and infrastructure. This allows them to withhold our own public resources from us at will.
Are we going to allow them to get away with this? Libertarians and communists alike have every reason to dissent against the centuries of destructive, demoralizing nonsense which sovereign states have brought us.
The enforcement of unnatural order is more akin to anarchy, in fact, than the type of natural, probably unenforceable, societal homeostasis, which is desired by the people whom are currently being called anarchists. Libertarians want the natural order that can only be enforced through universal individual resistance to domination and subjugation, by whomever is threatening it. Whomever wishes to defend others and their property, should do so, but no person should be compelled to do so either.
The only kind of order that libertarians want, which could be likened to force or violence, is for those who desire violence and fascism, to experience violence and fascism. Nobody may force any unwanted order upon anybody else. That is the libertarian way.
Written on March 26th, 2021
Edited on March 27th, 2021
Based on a video recorded and published on March 24th, 2021
