Before
commencing it is important to note that the explanation below
is not about any given libertarian political party. Rather
it is about libertarianism generally and about people who
consider themselves to support libertarianism, whether or
not they are members of a political party called The Libertarian
Party.
Before reading a word about defining characteristics of libertarianism,
every person be doing themselves a favour to understand that libertarianism,
like the term "Christianity", is a term used by people of widely
differing beliefs. One will find self-styled libertarians who believe
that there must be a
government and those who wish to do away with government altogether.
One will find libertarians who
believe in a natural and inalienable right of private property for
every individual, but also libertarians who reject such a right and
believe all property should be held communally. One will find libertarians
who - as an aspect of their political ideology - believe in God and
practice a religion, and those who are atheists. However, despite
their widely varying
beliefs, there are commonalities among
those who call themselves libertarian. The explanation that follows
focusses are the core commonalities: the things that, at the end
of the day, define libertarianism. Where major disagreements
or distinctions exist within libertarianism, they are noted for your
further investigation.
First Defining Feature of Libertarianism: It Explicitly or Implicitly
Embraces a Non-Aggression Axiom
As it is most
widely understood today, libertarianism is an ideology defined
most reliably by:
A commitment
to a Non-Aggression Axiom.
"A" Non-Aggression
Axiom because different self-styled libertarians have described
this commitment and its nature in very different (sometimes
mutually exclusive) ways, and the differences can be very important
to an understanding of the heterogeneous nature of libertarianism.
The differing definitions or interpretations of libertarianism
will be discussed below but, to begin this explanation, we
will start with a definition of the Non-Aggression Axiom
that is arguably consistent with all other definitions
of it. Specifically, and most generally, the Non-Aggression
Axiom
is a rule that can properly be worded as follows:
No person
may initiate or threaten to initiate the use
of coercive physical force.
To understand
this Non-Aggression Axiom properly, it is important to read
every word of it carefully. Four things, in particular, should
be noted.
First, it
is critical to notice that this Non-Aggression Axiom
does not rule out the use of coercive physical force
altogether: it prohibits only the initiation or threatened
initiation of coercive physical force. Therefore, the Non-Aggression
Axiom does not rule out self-defence. For example, if,
without your consent, a person punches you or threatens to
punch you, the Non-Aggression Axiom does not prohibit you from
using coercive physical force against the attacker (e.g., for
example, punching him).
The second
important thing to understand is that for physical force to
be coercive, it must be the case that the person upon whom
it is used did not consent to the use of the force.
If a person consents to being punched, the punch - the initiation
of physical force - is not coercive.
Note: There
is nothing about the Non-Aggression Axiom that requires consent
or the absence of consent to be communicated to the
person initiating the use of coercive physical force: when
consent exists is a question of fact, and sometimes consent
will be implied by the circumstances or by non-verbal communication.
For example, it can normally be inferred accurately that
a person does not want you to poke them in the eye: were
you to poke someone in the eye without them expressly consenting
to it (before or after the fact), you would have violated
the Non-Aggression Axiom. Similarly, it can normally be inferred
accurately that a parent consents to receiving a kiss from
his or her child: normally, kissing ones parent without first
getting permission will not constitute a violation of the
Non-Aggression Axiom. Indeed, barring circumstances under
which the child ought reasonably to have known that the kiss
was not consented to, kissing ones parent will normally not
constitute a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom even if
the parent subsequently says that he or she did not want
to be kissed by the child.
The third
important thing to notice, when trying to understand this Non-Aggression
Axiom, is that all coercion is ultimately physical.
Concepts, ideas, beliefs, messages and opinions never are.
Thus, with
the exception
of a threat to initiate the use of coercive physical force,
the mere communication to one or more people of a concept,
idea, belief, message or opinion never constitutes a violation
of the Non-Aggression Axiom. The Non-Aggression Axiom is not
even violated by communicating something that is emotionally
hurtful, disturbing, hateful, disgusting or obscene, provided
that the communication does not amount to a threat to initiate
the use of coercive physical force.
Fourth - and
this is extremely important - amongst those who call
themselves libertarians, there is disagreement about what constitutes coercion and
what constitutes mere persuasion. Largely, the disagreement
is based upon beliefs about property rights:
- To the
libertarian who believes that every individual has a right
to his or her own property (sometimes called "right
libertarians"), inaction is never coercion, such that
one cannot violate the Non-Aggression Axiom even by refusing
to help someone stay alive. Under this understanding of
coercion, if Frank said to a starving man "I will
not give you any of my food or water unless you mow my
lawn", that would be persuasion, not coercion, because
Frank would not use coercive physical force against the
starving, thirsty man if the starving, thirsty man chose
not to mow Frank's lawn. Consider that anarcho-capitalist
economist Murray Rothbard described the Non-Aggression
Axiom this way:
"The
Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that
no man or group of men may aggress against the person
or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression
axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the
initiation of the use or threat of physical violence
against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression
is therefore synonymous with invasion." - For
a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by
Murray N. Rothbard
It will be noticed that
Rothbard's description of the Non-Aggression Axiom uses the
phrase "property of anyone else", which implies
that one person can hold property to the exclusion
of others (a belief shared by only some who call themselves "libertarian").
Rothbard fully intended that the title "libertarian" should
apply only those who agree that every individual has a right
to his or her own property.
- To the libertarian
who believes that no person should have a right to exclude
others from the use of property (sometimes called "left
libertarians" or "socialist libertarians"),
inaction is sometimes coercion, and inaction can sometimes
constitute a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Under
this understanding of coercion, if Frank said to the starving
man "I will not give you any of my food or water unless
you mow my lawn", that would be coercion, not persuasion,
because - according to this view of property - the food
belongs to all persons in need of it, and Frank is effectively stealing food
from the starving man by not allowing him to eat it without
mowing Frank's lawn. For these libertarians, Frank's actions
are equivalent to taking food from the hands of the starving
man by the initiation of coercive physical force.
Second
Defining Feature of Libertarianism: Libertarianism is Committed
to Being Amoral
Libertarianism
does not concern itself with morality. To the contrary, libertarianism
is probably best understood as being inherently non-judgmental:
it intentionally rejects the making of moral judgments.
Whereas a given libertarian may have a code of ethics - while
he or she may have an understanding of good versus evil - libertarianism
itself has no code of ethics and refuses ever to have one.
This does not imply that all libertarians are amoral, though
some libertarians are averse to making moral judgments. To
the contrary, libertarianism is amoral primarily so as to make
itself compatible with a wide variety of ethical codes and
political ideologies: by refusing to align itself with any
particular code of ethics, libertarianism conflicts with few.
Third
Defining Feature of Libertarianism: A Belief that only a Violation
of the Non-Aggression Axiom Constitutes Injustice
Rather than
aligning itself with any particular moral philosophy or code
of ethics, libertarianism focusses on what it conceives of
as justice. The belief underlying the libertarian's
attachment to the Non-Aggression Axiom is that:
No injustice
is done to a person against whom the Non-Aggression Axiom
has not be violated.
Even if, under
some code of ethics, a certain sort of conduct is evil,
that conduct is not unjust from a libertarian point
of view provided that the conduct did not involve the initiation
of the coercive use of physical force. Thus, for example, libertarianism
is not concerned with whether prostitution or dealing marijuana
is good or evil: all that matters, from the libertarian perspective,
is that the prostitute and her customer freely consented to
exchange money for sex; that, for example, the marijuana dealer
did not physically coerce the customer to smoke marijuana.
Fourth Defining Feature of Libertarianism:
A belief that the Absence of Injustice equals Liberty
Libertarianism
sees the achievement and preservation of liberty as its ultimate
goal. The means by which it aims to achieve its goal is by
defending against injustice: by acting in self-defence when
there is a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Accordingly,
the libertarian view equates liberty with the absence of injustice.
LIBERTARIANISM AND PROPERTY: CAPITALIST vs. ANTI-CAPITALIST LIBERTARIANS
The
essence of capitalism is a belief that an individual
may hold the right to exclude others from the use of certain
property (e.g.,
land, chattel). The title "libertarian" has been
used, since the 1800s, by
anarchists: people who reject government, capitalism
and religion on the ground that each introduce hierarchy/authoritarianism/coercion
into society. However, in
the mid 1900s, there developed a deviation from anarchism:
an ideology
that
implicitly
or explicitly holds
capitalism not to introduce coercion into society, but
leaving intact the rejection of government and
organized religion. The anarchists embracing this ideology,
who refer to themselve as "anarcho-capitalists" (economist
Murray Rothbard being perhaps the most noteworthy among them),
like the anarchists before them, refer to themselves as
libertarians. In the early 1970s, anarcho-capitalists
were among those who formed the Libertarian Party in the
USA:
a party that is pro-capitalism. As a result partially of
the founding of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many libertarians
(and most Libertarian Party members) erroneously believe
that all libertarians are pro-capitalism. The reality is that
although
many libertarians
are pro-capitalism,
capitalism need not be and is not a defining feature of libertarianism.
Rather, capitalist libertarians
and anti-capitalist
libertarians simply differ
in opinion
about whether
capitalism constitutes/leads to coercion, hence to violations
of the Non-Aggression Axiom.
LIBERTARIANISM
AND GOVERNMENT: MINARCHISTS vs. ANARCHISTS
Virtually
all libertarians agree that governments must never violate
the Non-Aggression Axiom. And, to be clear, virtually all libertarians
oppose the idea that governments should use coercive physical
force to combat evil where there has been no violation
of the Non-Aggression Axiom.
However, when
it comes to the issue of how governments can be kept from violating
the Non-Aggression Axiom, libertarians can be seen as being
divided into two camps. One
camp, the anarchists (see above), believes that the best
or only way to prevent a government from violating the Non-Aggression
Axiom is to get rid of government altogether. The other
camp of libertarians - who might appropriately be called the "minarchists" -
takes he view that there should be a government, but that the
powers of government should be limited. Typically,
this camp is comprised of people who believe in a well-enforced
constitution that sets out a very narrow scope for the powers
of government. Most frequently, this camp believes (for one
reason or another) that every individual has inalienable rights
of life, liberty and property, and that the only legitimate
function of government is to protect those rights.
LIBERTARIANISM
vs. LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL PARTIES
Given that
anarchists and anarcho-capitalists oppose government, it should
not be surprising that you will find few
anarchists interested in forming a political party: the
whole point of a political party is to have members win seats
in a legislature and, possibly, positions in the executive branch
of a government. In practice, libertarian political parties exist
as (in some cases tax-credit issuing) anarcho-capitalist
associations that protest
virtually all instances of government activity, and/or as government-minded
political parties for some minarchists. Probably owing to the
fact that minarchists tend to be capitalists who are more interested
in running for government than are anarchists and anarcho-capitalists,
libertarian political parties are usually pro-capitalist:
this has tended
to disinterest anarchists other than the anarcho-capitalists.
The result is that, after over thirty years of the existence
of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people erroneously
believe that libertarianism is what the Libertarian Party says
it is. Given:
- the heritage of the term libertarian,
- the continuing
(if not now growing) movement of anti-capitalist anarchists
who, throughout the world, refer to themselves as libertarians;
and
- the shared opposition
to coercion underlying anti-capitalist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism,
and minarchism
it
would be a mistake to conclude that capitalism is a
defining characteristic of libertarianism. We suggest that both
capitalists and anti-capitalists can meet the defining characteristics
of a libertarian, and that:
All anarchists, anarcho-capitalists and minarchists
are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarchists,
not all
are anarcho-capitalists, and not all are pro-capitalist
minarchists.
" What
is libertarianism?" -
Copyright 2003, Paul McKeever. All Rights reserved.
Neither this page, nor any
of its contents, may be reproduced without express
written permission from Paul
McKeever.
Neither this page, nor any of its contents, may be
contained in a frame in another web site without
written permission,
but everyone is free to link to this page.
Last
updated on
September 6, 2004
|