Why I'm not a Libertarian
Philosophically educated readers will recognize the reference to Bertrand Russell’s book “Why I’m not a Christian". This article is by no means as extensive as Russell’s work, but more like a personal snapshot of my current thoughts about libertarians in Germany (and in some sense worldwide).
What is a libertarian?
For most people this question does not arise at all. Either because they have nothing to do with the term itself, or because they are deeply alienated by the idea of a society that exists largely free of state intervention.
Both are understandable positions - suitable for the majority, so to speak.
Now I find myself in the situation that I am familiar both with the concept of libertarianism and with the conviction that fewer state interventions usually lead to better final results. The many reasons that have led me to this view should not, however, be discussed here for the time being, as the purpose of this article is of a more fundamental nature.
In order to better understand the following paragraphs, it is necessary to make a brief excursion into the history of libertarian ideas.
The intellectual precursors of liberal and libertarian ideas (there is a reason why these terms should not be used synonymously nowadays, historically, however, this is acceptable) can be traced back to ancient Israel and Greece. Already at that time there were considerations regarding universally valid moral principles, which stood out from the legal positivism of the state ("Good is what law is") and to which even the most powerful rulers had to bow. These thoughts were, of course, mostly based on religion at the time, but they formed the basis for the liberal philosophy that followed.
With scholastic scholars such as Thomas Aquinas or Francisco de Vitoria, the idea of so-called "self-ownership" finally found its way into public consciousness for the first time. This right to one's own body and mind was eventually destined to form the foundation for a libertarian philosophy, which at the same time provided the basis for many of today's widespread individual rights.
The 17th and 18th centuries finally represented the first high point of liberal philosophy, when John Locke and Adam Smith provided the necessary arguments as to why liberalism was the smarter way to go politically, socially and economically. Many of the negative freedoms (freedom of something) we enjoy today are based on the core ideas of these thinkers.
Time Leap into the 19th / 20th Century
During the ever-increasing industrialization over the course of the 19th century, the priorities of many liberal thinkers and politicians shifted in the face of the now emerging question of how to deal with growing social inequality. Quite a few feared that the political freedoms that had just been so hard fought for would be undermined by extreme income disparities and that the rich of any society would set the rules for everyone else. As a result, many liberals now spoke out in favour of market regulation, higher taxes for the rich, trade unions and social welfare. Social democracy was born. Such ideas are by no means modern inventions of the political left.
One can already see the central problem of the concept of liberalism at this point:
It is almost impossible to define it homogeneously.
Which brings me to libertarianism.
Nowadays, it is mostly understood as a counter-concept to the so-called liberals in the USA (comparable to social democracy in terms of the history of ideas), which again focuses on (self) ownership, free market economy, individualism, skepticism towards state power as well as the non-aggression principle (NAP).
However, this was not always the case. In the period before the 1950s and 1960s of the 20th century, libertarianism by no means described only the characteristics just mentioned. The term was also very widespread within anarchist Marxist theories, which is why the term "left-libertarian", which is often used rather sarcastically today, certainly has a real, anti-capitalist background.
As a result of the increasing spread of the welfare state in the US in the first half of the 20th century (listen and be amazed: the US is by no means the ultra-capitalist country without social assistance that many Europeans still see today), many former liberals turned away from this term. In their view, the new liberalism betrayed its roots and the important ideas of its classical forefathers. Therefore, from the 1950s onwards, prominent figures such as Henry Louis Mencken and Albert Jay Nock coined the term libertarians as a counterpart to the now corrupted liberal.
With the writings of other libertarian thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Thomas Sowell, the term "libertarian" became known to an increasingly broad public and today symbolizes for most people a minimalist or private-law society based on a capitalist economic system, individual rights and the NAP as the highest goods.
This is, quite obviously, in contradiction to how most people today imagine a social order. Especially in Germany the idea of more personal responsibility, less state regulation and less taxes is frowned upon in many places.
Nevertheless, there is also a small but active libertarian community in this country, which organizes itself in various ways. Be it at libertarian informal meetings in different cities; the German branch of the Students for Liberty, in closed Facebook groups or in projects like Staatenlos / Tax Free Today.
My Problem with Libertarianism
During the past years I have either followed or been involved in all kinds of discussions within the German libertarian scene in various forums and media. At some point I became very aware of something: The scene has a big problem - a tinfoil-hat-problem, to be precise.
Now, of course, it is almost a statistical necessity that in a sufficiently large population there are also a few individuals who represent very questionable theses - but this share seems to be disproportionately high among the German libertarians.
Quite often statements are made which one would expect in this way rather from a PEGIDA demonstration or an AfD meeting (a populist right-wing party) - but not from people who pretend to respect the self-determination rights of other people.
At some point I gave up arguing against all the "9/11 was an inside job!" fanatics, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and similar conspiracy theorists. There is no point in it. For a good part of the people within the scene, anything that is somehow "official" consensus must be considered skeptical per se or is just a conspiracy (by whoever). Unfortunately, these people are also often the ones who get the most attention and thus shape the image of everyone.
I don't want that anymore. I don't want to be associated with it. Because everybody can call himself libertarian and nobody has the authority to decide what a libertarian actually is, a lot of people gather under this label, with whom I don't want to be associated.
I remember a discussion with an allegedly libertarian person. After Deniz Yücel was released, my counterpart said that Yücel should not have been supported by the Federal Government, because he once wrote a glossary in a German newspaper which did not present Germany in a favourable way. As a reminder, libertarianism also means that freedom of expression is an absolute good - any restriction is illegitimate. An imprisoned journalist is the very symbol of a violation of this right and his release should be morally imperative.
I do not want to be associated with people who call themselves libertarian and consider it acceptable, if other people end up in prison because of their opinions.
Of course, not everyone is like that. Fortunately, there are also positive counter-examples. Christoph Heuermann, the founder of Staatenlos / Tax Free Today, recently made this clear by showing that libertarian ideas should unite people and not divide them. He gave me permission to quote him for this article:
"Let me remind you again. I am glad that so many different people here, who would probably tear each other apart in discussions, provide such intensive practical support. Please leave politics out of this - nothing is more divisive than the state. Anyone who insults group members because of their religion, gender or whatever next time will be kicked out of this group. In this group it is about practical support - not about Reich citizens' gibberish or agitation against Muslims. One can criticise the refugee policy very sharply and also quite legitimately vote AfD, but please remain differentiated. Those who already live freely should not be concerned with such topics at all..."
Such clear statements are good and important and I am grateful for the fact that again and again there are voices that do exactly that. But the idea of libertarianism in this country is already too corrupted to be able to convince anyone. If I tell someone that I am libertarian, a reaction like "Oh, these are the supercapitalistic conspiracy theorists, aren't they?" often occurs.
Try to convince someone of your ideas with this starting position. That makes you jealous of Sisyphus.
So I'm caught in a paradox: I think like a libertarian, act (mostly) like a libertarian - but I don't want to be a libertarian.
The solution?
Pay less attention to terms, and focus more on content. I remain convinced that all people can benefit from more liberal ideas - just as billions of them have done over the past millennia. Whether you call yourself liberal, libertarian, anarchic or whatever, it doesn't really matter.
Freedom is not the fight over words, but everyday practice.
Some people tend to believe governments are the root of all evil.
Indeed, politicians tend to be either corrupt, incompetent or focusing more on manipulating voters than making the world a better place to be. Crony capitalism is a big problem. Democracy does not work. BUT, I agree very much with the old Churchill quote:
I was just writing a long comment to a post postulating (among other things) that "everything would be better without a government", in a nutshell my point is that huge public companies are bound to become evil unless they are controlled ... by some kind of government!
I'm considering rewriting that comment into an independent post.
I can understand their thinking and know how their logic works. They see horrible wars and injustices done by governments - therefore, governments are evil. Problem is: this is too shortsighted. I think a slow shift towards more liberty and less government is the only way a libertarian society can every be achieved.
Any sudden revolutions won't do any good. People need to want these things for themselves or it will fail.
Hm. This is something I disagree with on a theoretical level. The current political system protects big companies via tax reliefs, subsidies, minimum wages, etc. I never understood the logic of people who complained about corrupt governments and their liaison with big companies - and then wanted to make said government more powerful.
The more tools of control you provide, the more likely it will be, that someone is searching for opportunities to manipulate said tools to his own advantages. But if these tools are rendered useless, the incentive to do so decreases.
Hayek coined a phrase for that:
Because as soon as you "made it", you like to have a strong government behind you which can protect you against market competition.
Yes, the more laws and regulations, the harder it is for small companies to get established, and it also seems to me that quite many laws and regulations that (allegedly) are in place to prevent corruption only makes corruption more likely.
Still, at least from my point of view, the government here is doing more good than bad. Toxic rivers have been cleaned up, there is generally less pollution, waste is taken better care of, the public transport system works, schools work (even though they're indoctrinating the kids to become good Microsoft users, and still to some extent being used as a tool by the church), there is a positive trend that data produced by tax payers money are released into the public domain (even though a lot of work remains on that field) . Today I'm off from work with a sick leave, though admittedly there is a problem that the social benefits are abused by people whom are simply too lazy to work.
We need more transparency, a better working democracy, accountable politicians, a functional and independent press, functional and independent juridical bodies, but I don't think we need abolition of the government.
The problem is not with democracy per se, the problem is that our "liberal democracies" never democratized the economy. Unless you democratize the economy political power will be invariably coopted by, basically, the 1% (what you describe as crony capitalism, but which is just capitalism).
You can control corporate power with regulations as you suggest, but we have seen what happened after FDR: corporate power was shackled to a degree but it started a slow but steady attack and is now wreaking havoc again. Capitalism cannot be shackled, it will undo any regulation given enough time. The real way to combat corporate power is to prevent them from being so powerful in the first place, ie. democratize the workplace, democratize the economy.
EDIT: The Chomsky of course says it better
I loved the article. I, too, felt similarly when discussing libertarian ideals (classic liberal I sometimes call it) with friends and family.
One thing I have found to be beneficial when opening the topic is stating that I do NOT support anarchy, but rather limited and 'decentralized' government.
In the U.S. the founders instituted the federal system of government in which the States and the Federal government SHARED power. At the top end (federal) it was designed to be limited with enough power to ensure citizens may live freely (Bill of Rights) and that many other issues are left for the states and local authorities to determine.
Yeah, this is mostly my approach as well. I try to avoid certain "trigger words" and slowly introduce libertarian thinking into the discussion - let them reach them reach the conclusions on their own. And, most importantly: always remain calm and respectful. Spite and emotions ruin every discussion.
Yeah, it's a bit annoying Americans took over the term libertarian to mean anarchocapitalism and minarchism. There was a well-coordinated campaign in America to demonize the government and glorify private power in decades after WW2 (which of course reached its climax with Reagan), led by the Republican party who sold themselves to corporate power. Nowadays it's both the Republicans and Democrats who are owned by corporate power.
As someone who is in the left side of libertarianism, I also find this American branch of "libertarian" ideology to be beyond stupid and self-defeating, without regulations market externalities would destroy society (and that is sadly happening today even with moderate-to-low levels of regulations. Thanks neoliberalism!) taking everyone's liberties with it. You'll only get to enjoy the full spectrum of liberty for a time if you are part of the owner class, but environmental collapse will eventually come to claim you too.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
It's a lottery as to who and where you're born and those play enormous factors in your outcome in life.