LIBERTARIAN CAPITALISM: A CASE OF STOLEN IDENTITY

(By all means see my entry Libertarian Socialism: A Nicer Name For Anarchism, published on my blog on April 3^rd, 2012.)

The following is basically an informative entry, whose chief purpose is to alert the reader to the simple fact that… all that calls itself gold isn’t gold.

Let this be a fitting epigraph to the phenomenon, modestly and unassumingly known in the United States as libertarianism, which, however, is a case of deliberately false identification.

It will be perhaps appropriate to dedicate a large entry, within my freedom theory subsection of the general Philosophy section, to the anarcho-libertarian conception of liberty, an unexpectedly provocative, thrilling subject. This entry, though, is not aiming at a comprehensive analysis of the libertarian philosophy. It is limited to only one aspect of it: the libertarian’s ethical evaluation of freedom in the capitalist, as opposed to the socialist or stateless context. It is important to emphasize that I am presently focusing on the American version of libertarianism, also called libertarian capitalism, to be distinguished from libertarian socialism, which latter is, of course, the authentic variety of libertarianism in the classic European tradition.

Champions of the latter reject American libertarian ideas of “individual economic freedom” as inimical to the libertarian spirit. They argue that capitalism is incompatible with individual freedoms for the majority of people “by creating social inequality, poverty, and lack of accountability for the most powerful.” Their antagonists strike back claiming that “personal responsibility, private charity, and the voluntary exchange of goods and ideas are all consistent manifestations of an individualistic approach to liberty, presenting a more effective and more ethical way to prosperity and peaceful coexistence. They insist that in capitalistic societies, even the poorest would end up better off as a result of faster overall economic growth.” (Quoted both times, and later on, from the Wikipedia.)

How, then, did the precipitous change from anarchism to capitalist liberalism occur under the sanctuary of a single word, libertarianism?

In the latter half of the twentieth century, the term “libertarian,” earlier associated with anarchism, came to be adopted by those whose attitudes bore a closer resemblance to the classical liberals. In 1955, Dean Russell wrote an article pondering on what to call those such as himself, who subscribed to the classical philosophy of individualism and self-responsibility. This is how he put it:

“Many of us call ourselves liberals. It is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsion. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term, to identify, as liberal, themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more control over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward, subject to misunderstanding. Here is my suggestion -- Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”

Simple? But what would a true classical libertarian say about this clear-cut case of an identity theft?

In the final analysis, I believe, the legitimacy of libertarianism depends on the validity of its philosophical interpretation of individual freedom.

Libertarian capitalists argue that a free market will spontaneously arise, unless suppressed by force. They say that a capitalist economy is natural, rather than artificial, so it would naturally develop in the absence of regulating factors. Thus, they argue that a truly socialist libertarianism is an oxymoron. They contend that libertarian socialism is based on a false view of human nature that humans will work and fulfill their natural potential without any thought of reward. They further contend that the libertarian-socialist wish to bring democratic control to all areas of life will by definition eliminate individual control of any aspect of life. This, they say, brings to question the very use of the word “libertarian” in “libertarian socialist,” since the word implies maximum individual freedom.

Finally, many argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty. The Kurt Vonnegut story, Harrison Bergeron where equality is enforced by imposing handicaps on the overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through exaggeration. (Ironically, Vonnegut was himself a socialist, thus his Harrison Bergeron can hardly be interpreted as his criticism of socialism per se! We shall return to Vonnegut later in another entry.)

Libertarian socialists see the alleged conflict between freedom and equality as nonsense.

Radical egalitarians, such as Noam Chomsky, observe that “human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight, rather than a condition to be abhorred.” (Chomsky Reader) The idea of another great egalitarian, Karl Marx, was never to make human beings identical, but “the development of rich individuality, which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption,” and “the absolute working out of (his or her) creative potentialities.”

Libertarian socialists believe that the libertarian capitalist conception of freedom as such, often amounts to little more than apologetics for the right of the rich and powerful to do as they please at the expense of the freedoms of the poor and (at least virtually) powerless.

It is on this last point where I am in total agreement with the classical libertarians of the socialist kind. To paraphrase the famous Baconian dictum in a multiple fashion, Money is Power and Freedom is Power. It is not possible for the poor to be free where the rich have the power, buying their special sort of freedom with their money, which the poor have not, and therefore cannot buy it for themselves. Leaving the poor at the mercy of the rich may give the poor certain advantages, like some tasty scraps from the masters’ table, but freedom is by no means one of those scraps.

…And now, the last point I’d like to make. The idea that the socialist state deprives its citizens of freedom because of its power to coerce, is baloney. In the natural stateless state of man, there are always the strong and the weak, and, therefore, no equality, no freedom for the weak. Society has to handicap the contest, to achieve a reasonable level of fairness. The socialist state thus serves not so much as a coercer, as an equalizer. It is precisely because of the nature of human nature that such equalization decisions ought not to be relegated to private benevolence but to the public domain of the equitably functioning state. In other words, only a strong and self-confident state can dispense freedom to all. No capitalist utopia will ever want to do it, or will be able to do it, even if it wanted to.

On the other hand, those who might argue that capitalist society can very competently provide those same social services that I was talking about, through the capitalist welfare system, as it has been the practice in the United States for decades, ought to realize that the American welfare practice has been an aberration in the philosophy of capitalist society, and that it rather represents an artificial and manifestly awkward at that socialist additive to the capitalist mode of functioning than a natural outgrowth of a social-friendly alter ego of a capitalist entrepreneur.

And, yes, mind you, my use of the word “socialist” is in conformity to the liberal European tradition, and not in the radical sense, which its opponents are all too eager to ascribe to it.