medicineman
New Member
Right Wing criticism
Rightists often argue that government is needed to maintain social order and morality. They may argue that excessive personal freedoms encourage dangerous and irresponsible behaviour. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the drug war, and public education. Libertarians feel that the state has no business being involved in what they see as victimless crimes, but these conservatives view some of these same issues as threats to society. Some, such as the conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review consider libertarianism "a form of arrogant nihilism" that is both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like drug addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes "You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do. The Boy Scouts don't throw a pocketknife to a kid and say, 'Knock yourself out, kid. I'll be back in a couple hours.' The cultural libertarians want to do precisely that... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact."[1]
Note: Libertarians do not advocate "absolute freedom," but insist that the freedom of action of each adult individual should only be limited at the point where it would harm others (i.e., infringe on their freedom). Also, it is very unusual for libertarians to advocate that children have the same liberty as adults, and how much freedom children should have, and what approaches to child rearing are best, is a subject of much debate among libertarians. However, that adults should not be treated by government like children are treated by their guardians, as right wing critics like Goldberg often seem to favor, is a libertarian maxim. Goldberg has also had repeated spats with Lew Rockwell and his followers (whom he calls "angry libertarians") over what they see as conservatism's concessions to socialism [2] and its support for the war in Iraq. Goldberg argues that modern conservatism incorporates the best features of libertarianism without its flaws through what he calls fusionism:
Hayek says that in the United States you can 'still' be a defender of liberty by defending long-standing institutions that were designed to preserve freedom. In other words, 'conservatives' in America are or can be classical liberals... traditionalist conservatives and free-market libertarians agree on about 85% of all public-policy issues... When [libertarians] try to break ranks entirely the most common result is that they throw a party to which nobody shows up.[3]
[edit] Left Wing criticism
Many criticisms of libertarianism question the definition of "freedom" upheld by libertarians. For example, liberals and socialists sometimes argue that the economic practices defended by libertarians result in privileges for a wealthy elite, and that even people that have not been coerced (according to the libertarian definition) may not be free because they lack the power or wealth to act as they choose.
Some, such as John Rawls and Ernest Partridge, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can only function among "a well-knit community of citizens... with an active understanding that every citizen, without exception and whatever his accomplishment, bears an enormous burden of moral debt to both predecessors and contemporaries". If these prerequisites for a libertarian society depend on paying this debt, these critics argue, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.[4] Further, Rawls argued that rational people without knowledge of their current status (behind what he called a veil of ignorance) would want society to provide a safety net for the least advantaged because of the possibility that they would need it themselves. An important distinction made by Rawls is between freedom itself and the value of freedom, and libertarians wrongly seek to maximise freedom without consideration of the value of the resulting freedoms. This criticism is based on the notion of the incommensurability of values, where liberty is but one good that must compete with others, rather than all goods being reducible to one simple measure of utility. Libertarians simplistically consider liberty to trump all other goods, without consideration of the commensurability of different goods. Significantly, although Rawls argues for inviolable rights, these are restricted to situations where basic prosperity has been established, rather than being ideological maxims in the manner of libertarians' view of liberty.
Libertarians like Robert Nozick argue the desires of hypothetical individuals cannot override an individual's moral right to his or her life and its products (property), and argue that a "well ordered society" can be maintained without government coercion. It should be noted that minarchists consider such a society to require more government than anarcho-capitalists do.
Other critics argue that a democracy can legitimately override the rights of its own constituents, though libertarians like Hayek and Friedman respond that independent decisions of noncoerced buyers and sellers represent the "will of the people" more effectively than ballots do. Critics argue that this is not the case because it gives greater weight to the preferences of the wealthy.
Rightists often argue that government is needed to maintain social order and morality. They may argue that excessive personal freedoms encourage dangerous and irresponsible behaviour. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the drug war, and public education. Libertarians feel that the state has no business being involved in what they see as victimless crimes, but these conservatives view some of these same issues as threats to society. Some, such as the conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review consider libertarianism "a form of arrogant nihilism" that is both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like drug addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes "You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do. The Boy Scouts don't throw a pocketknife to a kid and say, 'Knock yourself out, kid. I'll be back in a couple hours.' The cultural libertarians want to do precisely that... pluralism [should not be]... a suicide pact."[1]
Note: Libertarians do not advocate "absolute freedom," but insist that the freedom of action of each adult individual should only be limited at the point where it would harm others (i.e., infringe on their freedom). Also, it is very unusual for libertarians to advocate that children have the same liberty as adults, and how much freedom children should have, and what approaches to child rearing are best, is a subject of much debate among libertarians. However, that adults should not be treated by government like children are treated by their guardians, as right wing critics like Goldberg often seem to favor, is a libertarian maxim. Goldberg has also had repeated spats with Lew Rockwell and his followers (whom he calls "angry libertarians") over what they see as conservatism's concessions to socialism [2] and its support for the war in Iraq. Goldberg argues that modern conservatism incorporates the best features of libertarianism without its flaws through what he calls fusionism:
Hayek says that in the United States you can 'still' be a defender of liberty by defending long-standing institutions that were designed to preserve freedom. In other words, 'conservatives' in America are or can be classical liberals... traditionalist conservatives and free-market libertarians agree on about 85% of all public-policy issues... When [libertarians] try to break ranks entirely the most common result is that they throw a party to which nobody shows up.[3]
[edit] Left Wing criticism
Many criticisms of libertarianism question the definition of "freedom" upheld by libertarians. For example, liberals and socialists sometimes argue that the economic practices defended by libertarians result in privileges for a wealthy elite, and that even people that have not been coerced (according to the libertarian definition) may not be free because they lack the power or wealth to act as they choose.
Some, such as John Rawls and Ernest Partridge, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can only function among "a well-knit community of citizens... with an active understanding that every citizen, without exception and whatever his accomplishment, bears an enormous burden of moral debt to both predecessors and contemporaries". If these prerequisites for a libertarian society depend on paying this debt, these critics argue, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.[4] Further, Rawls argued that rational people without knowledge of their current status (behind what he called a veil of ignorance) would want society to provide a safety net for the least advantaged because of the possibility that they would need it themselves. An important distinction made by Rawls is between freedom itself and the value of freedom, and libertarians wrongly seek to maximise freedom without consideration of the value of the resulting freedoms. This criticism is based on the notion of the incommensurability of values, where liberty is but one good that must compete with others, rather than all goods being reducible to one simple measure of utility. Libertarians simplistically consider liberty to trump all other goods, without consideration of the commensurability of different goods. Significantly, although Rawls argues for inviolable rights, these are restricted to situations where basic prosperity has been established, rather than being ideological maxims in the manner of libertarians' view of liberty.
Libertarians like Robert Nozick argue the desires of hypothetical individuals cannot override an individual's moral right to his or her life and its products (property), and argue that a "well ordered society" can be maintained without government coercion. It should be noted that minarchists consider such a society to require more government than anarcho-capitalists do.
Other critics argue that a democracy can legitimately override the rights of its own constituents, though libertarians like Hayek and Friedman respond that independent decisions of noncoerced buyers and sellers represent the "will of the people" more effectively than ballots do. Critics argue that this is not the case because it gives greater weight to the preferences of the wealthy.