Monthly Archives: February 2015

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.[note 1]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the foundation of most present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[3][4][5] It is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what rights a person has.[6] Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threat of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited action that physically affects another individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's will and interfere with his right to self-ownership and self-determination.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.[7] Many supporters argue that the NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts.

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons, and the executive and legislative branches.[8][9][10] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[11]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[12][13] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient, that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can't desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[14]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[15]

While there is debate on whether left, right, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme," right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property.[16] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."[17] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned, and therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[18]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[19] They generally support the free market, and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[20]

Libertarianism in the United States developed in the 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[21]H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians.[22] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[23]

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[24] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right."[25] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups; this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party, and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Here is the original post:
Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, and pragmatic concerns. Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution. It has also been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its policy of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Furthermore libertarianism has been criticized due to the lack of any actual such societies today.

Some critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism.[1]

Libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms targeted at the social contract theory.[2]

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare," philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state." Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires." He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs."

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs." Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle," to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.[3]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if [...] the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. [...] The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."[4]

Robert Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions but is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own property rights.[5]

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.[6]

Critics of laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system favored by some libertarians, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that humans involved in markets do not always act rationally.[citation needed]

View original post here:
Criticism of libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia