This House would be a libertarian; right or left, right or wrong.

A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.

The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”

All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.

It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.

The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.

Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.”[i]

The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.

[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html

A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.

The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i].

[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990

Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.

Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed[i].

[i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.

As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.

Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.

The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.

It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.

In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.

The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.

A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.

The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”

All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.

It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.

The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.

Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.”[i]

The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.

[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html

A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.

The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i].

[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990

Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.

Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed[i].

[i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.

As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.

Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.

The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.

It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.

In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.

The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.

There is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20^th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%.[i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&dq=Government%20activity%20as%20portion%20of%20gdp&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false pp.15-16

The alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.

What both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use  would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.

It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.

The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.

It is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.

The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.

The role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty

and the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.