Lakewood The Thinking City

The Challenge of Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which holds that the liberty of individuals should be maximized and the power of government minimized. Many Libertarians believe in the “Night Watchman State,” i.e. they believe that the government should do no more than protect citizens from harm and deception. Although Libertarianism obviously doesn't conform to most current opinion, it challenges us to show that our conceptions of government are justified.
Here are some of the questions that Libertarianism poses:

What should a government ALWAYS do FOR people?

We all believe government should protect us from assault or murder. Should it also, for example, provide food and shelter necessary to life? Do we have a right to these things? (The Libertarian would say no.)

… and what should a government NEVER do TO people?

What are the rights that government must always respect, no matter what the majority says? For example, most or all of us believe that we have a right not to be tortured. Libertarians say we also have a right not to be taxed or otherwise coerced, beyond what is necessary to support a minimal state. This means that most programs like public works and welfare are ruled out. Libertarians believe these things should be done (if they are to be done at all) by private enterprise. So the next question is:

What can PRIVATE ENTERPRISE accomplish BETTER than government?

Government performs many services, from rubbish collection to roads to education. Libertarians suggest that this could be done better by private enterprise.

Here are two examples to test Libertarian principles:

1) Think back to the time before HMO’s, when there were family doctors. Suppose a small town has had a doctor, the only one. But he has died and his place has been taken by another doctor who immediately announces that he will be charging at least twice as much as the previous doctor did (and more than is customary for the rest of the region).   When citizens protest, he points out that no one is holding a gun to their heads. They can pay his prices or they can go 50 miles to the next closest medical facility or they can do without.   Is this new doctor’s policy morally permissible, or is it wrong? Would it be legitimate for the government to intervene in some way to bring down the price of medical care?
     (Some have said that the doctor is wrong because he is harming the people in the town. But how is this so? What harm is
     he inflicting?)

2) Suppose you owned and operated a trolley-car system. Suppose the cars were open, like the cable cars in San Francisco, and every day I hopped on, took the trolley to my destination, and refused to pay my fare. You could hire a special conductor to throw me off, but that would cost more than you would gain. Or you could take me to court.   Is it legitimate for the government to make me pay the fare? What would a Libertarian say?
     (Note that I am not really harming you when I steal the ride, nor have I made a contract to pay. Rather, I am not being fair. So
     we must ask: Should the government enforce principles of fairness; and if so, what are those principles?)

(Questions came largely from the discussion of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, led by John Guscott at the Lakewood Public Library, May 21. Examples and summary by Gordon Brumm.)

When (if ever) should the U.S. intervene militarily overseas?

This was discussed by the C.L.U.R.T. (“Come Let Us Reason Together”) group during
March and April. Four main lines of thought appeared in answer to the question:

1) We should intervene for moral and humanitarian reasons, such as preventing crimes against humanity.

One objection is that in intervening for a moral purpose, we are imposing our own moral
values on others. However, it was also claimed that we ought to impose our values on others.
In intervening for humanitarian reasons, when are we imposing our values on others?
Are we justified in imposing our values on others?
When (in what cases) is humanitarian military intervention effective?

2) We should intervene to serve our national self-interest.

Everyone agreed that this is a justified purpose, but two questions are raised:
How (if at all) should our acting for our self-interest be limited?
When (if ever) should we intervene for reasons that go beyond our self-interest?

3) We should adhere to the decisions of the United Nations.

This principle was defeated by consideration of what it would lead us to. However, the UN
might be useful in achieving other objectives (e.g. humanitarian) and is worthwhile as a forum.

4) We should never intervene militarily.

One reason given for this stand is that military intervention never does any lasting good,
but often causes great harm.
Another is that we have no right to intervene in other countries unless asked.
A third is that our government has no right to take such overseas action.
Also, practical difficulties were specified: in finding the truth about the
situation; in defining specific goals and keeping to them; the possibility of
aggravating the situation instead of helping it.

Examples:
a) Suppose that in the early 1940s, Nazi Germany was at peace with the West (suppose it had invaded the Soviet Union instead of France, or had withdrawn from France etc.). In other words, suppose the U.S. was not threatened by Germany. And suppose we found out, without any trace of doubt, that the Holocaust was taking place. Should we have invaded Germany?
b) Suppose that OPEC nations cut off our supply of oil at a crucial time. Should we invade major OPEC countries in order to restore our oil supply?
c) Afghan women are reportedly extremely oppressed under the present Taliban government. Should we intervene to save them?
d) If invited by the Colombian government, should we intervene militarily to help against the guerrillas attacking it?

Back to Lakewood the Thinking City Home Page