Criticism of Libertarianism

I stumbled across a criticism of libertarianism one day, and I think it's worthwhile sharing. It's one person's attempt to define a Libertarian from the standpoint of a modern liberal. The definition appeared in Liberapedia, and it can be found using this address: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarianism

The writer just couldn't help but mislead his readers and give a highly slanted and obnoxious viewpoint. I assume it's a man that provided this swill because I just can't imagine any self-respecting woman offering such ignorant and slanted venom.

I'm sharing for one simple reason...this is the type of venom we often get from those who don't understand the principles behind our approach to public policy making.

Much of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that too many of our fellow citizens are comfortable with the idea of being cared for and watched over by our government, and they don't bother to see how we are squandering our wealth, enslaving our future generations with debt, eroding our basic rights and freedoms, and promoting the creation of an ever larger government that will continue to suck the blood out of us for generations to come.

Remember our Declaration of Independence?

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

I'm going to quote various passages from this Liberapedia article and point out where the writer's thinking is skewed, and in many cases downright mean and senseless. Nevertheless, it reflects much of the venom I've seen from other sources.

Criticism of Libertarianism - just another group

The definition begins with,

"Libertarians are a group of people who hold left wing views on social matters, and right wing views on fiscal matters."

This is as close to the truth that the article gets, but it's still not much of a bullseye.

First, we're not a group. We're individuals. Any Libertarian you meet will likely be one of the most reluctant of any "groupies" you might run into. We believe in individual thought and action. Many of us aren't followers.

Second, we're not left or right wing in our views. We hold principled views that support freedom, justice, individual rights, and constitutionally limited government. That tends to have us leaning liberal (towards liberty) with respect to social matters because those are individual concerns, and conservative when it comes to fiscal matters because it's our wealth that the government is spending (and we know just how quickly wealth disappears when people behave in a non-conservative manner).

Chris Rock says is well in a stand-up routine. He says we're fools if we don't carefully consider each issue before we make up our minds - we need to stop trying to be part of a group/gang that has a liberal or conservative mentality just because we've joined a particular "club."

Criticism of Libertarianism - damned isolationists!

The next criticism of libertarianism is that we agree on an,

"isolationist foreign policy."

Well, if you follow anything that the CATO Institute has been doing for years, you can't help but note that they're in favor of free trade, especially with foreign countries.

CATO is the leading libertarian think tank, and a central theme of their recommendations to foreign policy makers is to liberalize trade and get more people all over the world involved in the marketplace. This provides a greater standard of living for everyone, and promotes peace.

With respect to involvement in recent conflicts, I can't think of a Libertarian that wasn't behind the initial war effort in Afghanistan. The Taliban actively supported the 09/11/2001 attacks on our country and needs to be eliminated.

With respect to expanding the war into Iraq, the CATO Institute has been a vocal opponent of the war from the beginning. It's clearly a dilution of our Afghanistan efforts.

And, the threats against Iran make nearly everyone shake their heads. Perhaps the powers that be truly believe that invading a country will earns us respect and good will from those who we invade. So far, I haven't seen any of that.

Libertarians aren't isolationists, we just believe in applying our sense of justice abroad as well as at home. Our first instincts are to interact with our neighbors in a manner that makes sense for a longer term relationship. We prefer trade between nations instead of simply handing out foreign aid. We prefer diplomacy to an invasion.

Criticism of Libertarianism - corporate conspirators

In yet another criticism of libertarianism, the article goes on the say that,

"Libertarians tend to be supporters of unchecked corporate power.... That means bosses should be able to force whatever they like onto their workers and those who buy their products. If workers are too weak to fight back against a bullying boss that's just too bad."

Well, not exactly, but you can see where the writer is coming from. The only perspective in his mind is simply that of large corporations where the consumer and the employees are both victims. And, of course, government is expected to come to the rescue of both.

If our writer had spent any time at all reviewing the work of lawyers over at the Institute for Justice, he would have seen many a case filed against unchecked government power that attempts to stifle the market economy with licensing requirements and ordinances for small business entrepreneurs that are trying to offer an alternative to the large and clumsy corporations.

George Will described the Institute for Justice as "a merry band of libertarian litigators." That's probably a good assessment, and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of their clients are "onezees" in the marketplace - individuals trying to battle the larger corporate interests and the politicians that they have in their pocket.

And if you think Libertarians support taxpayer funded bail-outs, government take-over of corporations, an economic stimulus plan or anything along those lines, you'd be wrong. That's corporate welfare.

According to the writer's criticism of libertarianism, we're supposed to be,

"... a kind of business worshiping cult...."

I think this bit of criticism of libertarianism is a very telling comment.

• Where do goods and services come from? Right, they come from businesses.
• How do most of us stay gainfully employed? Right, we're employed by businesses or we create our own.
• Who creates wealth in this country that government so readily consumes? Right again, it originates with enterprises. It's taken from companies and their employees.

Despite the clouded insight from our critic, you'll find that Libertarians don't like corporate welfare because it's not a good use of our tax dollars, and it's interference with the marketplace - something that many big government politicians are typically in favor of.

Libertarians believe in limited government and free markets, and they believe that the marketplace is self-correcting if you just leave it alone. Some regulation is required to ensure fairness, but interfere and manipulation of the market is not required nor wise.

Criticism of Libertarianism - health care reform

More criticism of libertarianism - this time it's health care. The article states,

"Libertarians are opposed to Universal Health Care because it is more ethical to allow wealth to determine who lives or dies."

First of all, universal health care isn't about health care, it's about health care insurance, just like the Canadians have. The government runs the system and when Canadians have serious problems, they go to "the states" for those operations and pay for them out of their own pocket. I know, because I've actually spoken with many Canadians about their system.

And, despite the waiting lists for high cost procedures, politicians somehow get to step in front of others and have those life saving procedures. Imagine that!

While we are tossing out criticism of Libertarianism and yearning for health care like they have in Canada, let's take a look at what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say about that country's health insurance program. They said it was illegal because it didn't allow a person, who is the manager of their own life and health, to have supplemental private insurance to take proper care of their health.

In other words, Canadian law denies individuals the right to live freely by limiting their ability to care for themselves and make decisions in the marketplace that affected their health and welfare.

So, even Canada doesn't think their system works!

In spite of the belief that Universal Health Care will prevent wealth from determining who lives or dies, it's clear that this government run program will:

• have bureaucrats determining who lives and dies
• encourage politicians to "take cuts" to make certain they aren't one of those at the end of the waiting list
• interfere with our ability to manage our own health

While our writer hands out plenty of criticism of libertarianism, he doesn't seem to have any criticism for government meddling that puts political power over the individual.

It's just not a good idea to have the same people who run Social Security also running health care. But, I understand that the need to articulate criticism of libertarianism can override common sense that would have individual making decisions for him or herself, not some bureaucrat, politician or committee in government.

Criticism of Libertarianism - not enough government

Our fanciful writer continues with,

"They don’t want the government to hold media and corporations accountable. They should allow the industry to regulate themselves."

Libertarians recognize that we don't live in a perfect world, but the world certainly doesn't get more perfect when we allow governments to be in charge - it gets more messed up. We also recognize that the marketplace evolves at a pace that normally doesn't satisfy the "drive through" and "instant" mindset of the average American.

In nearly every case, the free market should be the controller of corporations (including the media corporations), and it should be given time to do that - without government interference. Let's look at two examples:

• The left leaning television media was finally challenged by the right leaning Fox network, and you can see them respond strongly to their loss of viewers.
• Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, and the liberals launched their own left leaning Air America talk show in response.

With respect to media, I think it's best to have the fools on either side of an argument make their cases and let the people decide with their patronage.

If there is any ironing out to do, it should be done with honest competition and consumers deciding about where they will spend their money. Businesses respond to customer patronage because that's the reason they're in business. Customer is king!

Criticism of Libertarianism - not enough laws

One last example from our Liberapedia loony. He says that Libertarians,

"...claim they are for freedom. In practice this means freedom for the strong to oppress the weak. For example labor protection legislation protects ordinary workers against exploitation and arbitrary dismissal. Ordinary people have more freedom when the government protects them against richer and stronger people."

Again, he gets back to the theme of people who have money as being individuals that ordinary workers need protection from. I imagine he thinks the rich are bad. Why? Because they have the money to start businesses that employ ordinary people? Is it because they invest in our economy?

I just don't get it, and probably never will.

He mentions "labor protection legislation" as being something good from the government. I suppose the minimum wage law is an example of this. Well, the only bad thing I see about minimum wage is that government made a law that in effect says "you only have to pay this much money per hour," and by doing so established a standard across many areas of commerce, business and industry.

I don't know anyone that believes working for minimum wage is a wonderful thing, and yet it's an example of government developed "labor protection legislation."

And, in this criticism of libertarianism, there's no mention of how government gangs up on small businesses, run by "ordinary people," and puts the screws to them with rules, regulations, fees, licenses, restrictions and taxes.

An associate of mine runs a small company that saves money with their self-insured medical plan. Current (summer 2009) legislation under consideration at the federal level would make being self-insured illegal for thousands of small companies like his.

Our writer maintains that,

"Ordinary people have more freedom when the government protects them against richer and stronger people."

And, who is richer and stronger than the government? Nobody! So who protects us from a government gone wild? I'll bet among all the criticism of libertarianism, you won't find the answer to that.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about a Democracy being a place where 51% of the people can tell the other 49% what to do. We aren't very far from that when government steps in and tries to regulate everything under the sun - all the while ignoring individual rights and the constitution on which the government is founded.

And, Henry David Thoreau was right, "That government is best that governs not at all."

Whether it's liberals or conservatives, it's easy to get around our republic form of government by simply ignoring the limitations placed on government by our founding documents. In all the criticism of libertarianism, it's funny how our limitless government never seems to come up as a concern.

Why is that?

Done with Criticism of Libertarianism, take me Home