On Libertarianism

Since some have been discussing the Ron Paul phenomenon, I thought I might add a few thoughts about the general direction from which they are coming. Libertarianism is something I was introduced to as a kid, and since that time I've become much acquainted with this movement's philosophical roots. At base, as I see things, they're supporters of a relatively unhistoricized, idealistic version of capitalism that considers "the free market" pretty much the answer to all problems.

On the one hand, I find it odd that some people think you can apply economic notions from centuries ago (before the Industrial Revolution even got going – Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776) without any significant modification. That is naïve, and it ought to be clear that an amoral system such as "the market" cannot be the answer to all problems, even though it works remarkably well in some areas of life. Most of us, I suspect, would insist that ethics must sometimes supplement pure economics – if capitalism doesn't ensure that everybody has access to good health care, for instance, some other set of values must be invoked to make sure people get access to it. A lot of things can be adequately dealt with by saying that money and property are their measure, but some of the most vital things in life cannot. If you tried to extend the market philosophy and system to everything, I fear, you would end up with something more like a Hobbesian state of nature than a truly civilized society – one in which everybody recognizes that there's something more valuable about human connections than is implied by the transitory "cash-nexus" that makes capitalism go.

As the free-marketeers suggest, charitable concern for our fellows can be monetized or commoditized to some extent, but it probably cannot be sufficiently commoditized so as to ensure genuine civility. That's no doubt an indictment of us all, but the question is "what kinds of social and political forms will encourage people to behave humanely towards one another?" And I'm suggesting that while unmodified capitalist economics may generate wealth for a considerable number of people, it shows little regard for ensuring that everybody has the basics of life. So it needs supplementation from values beyond its own reserves if it is to help us live well.

On the other hand, some of what libertarians believe is worthy of admiration – they are among the few people around, it seems, who believe that except in very extreme cases likely to cause harm to all, it's none of their business what others are up to in the areas of sexuality, drug use, and so forth. What a breath of fresh air in comparison to a certain element (unfortunately, it appears to be just about the only one left at present) within the Republican Party that thinks we can wiretap, torture, render, surveil and moralize our way to nirvana. Such people confound religion and politics to the point where they become indistinguishable, and apparently have no problem supporting even the most extreme "statist" measures. The libertarians oppose such impositions, and for that I think they deserve some regard; perhaps the better side of this philosophy will become a source of regeneration within the Republican Party.

Finally, the problem I see with the libertarian philosophy remains a big one: the good and the bad may be inextricable since libertarian defenses of individual freedom are deeply bound up with their understanding of competition, wealth, and property. Their social philosophy stems from their economic philosophy, and the latter seems unrealistic and very likely to produce unintended consequences of a destructive and destabilizing kind.