Everyone has total freedom of choice in the libertarian dream, but there are practical problems – and it is politically unacceptable.
Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, as described above (6.2.2.1), and it can be implemented to different degrees. Robert Nozick’s version of libertarianism is used here for the purposes of argument – it envisages having a minimum State, whose sole function is to protect people and property from harm. Taxation is minimised in such a system, as recommended by Milton Friedman. Its only framework for co-operation is in commercial enterprises, whose objective is to make money:
· Libertarianism gives people freedom, but not everyone will have the means to enjoy it. Without socio-economic rights (4.2.4.3), many people would be destitute.
· No-one would have any obligation to anyone else. Those in need would have no-one to turn to unless they were lucky enough to have family or friends to help them. Even if wealthy people voluntarily offer help, by giving charity (4.2.4.6), the poor would effectively be in thrall to those who deigned to help them.
· People would have to accept the inequality of opportunity which results from the retention of wealth. If health and education are mostly privatised, the wealthy can send their children to better schools, and maintain themselves in better health, than other people. Wealth and privilege become entrenched, in a plutocracy not far removed from feudalism.
· A strong desire to make money is an inherent ingredient of capitalism (3.2.1), and it cannot be denied that capitalism has successfully lifted many people out of poverty, but it requires consumers who are able to purchase goods and services. Libertarians need everyone else: economic reciprocity is essential (3.5.1.1).
· Total individual liberty is incompatible with democracy, as it rejects the idea of deferring to the demands of other people. As Silicon Valley libertarian Peter Thiel wrote, in The Education of a Libertarian:
“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
“Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
· Any public infrastructure that is needed would be provided by private enterprise in the libertarian dream, but this is not always practicable (3.2.8). The State plays a vital role in making some projects possible.
· Libertarian deregulation does not guarantee the provision of essential services. When Texas experienced a freak snow storm in February 2021, as reported by the Washington Post, “The Texas grid got crushed because its operators didn’t see the need to prepare for cold weather”. Texas had no resilience because it had cut parts of its power grid away from the rest of the United States to avoid federal regulation. Electricity bills had been lower than in other States, but some people died from cold.
· There is no concept of the common good in libertarian thinking. It is hard to see how the problems of climate change, for example, could be combated without some collective action.
· It might be possible for small groups to avoid paying tax to a government, by living on offshore artificial islands and paying directly for the services they required. This is a concept known as 'seasteading'. The libertarian start-ups of the seasteaders are adrift from reality, according to the Financial Times: “The main objective is to squirrel away wealth without paying a fair share of tax.” They would have limited options in their dealings with other people: “As long as they remain dependent on the resources of other land-based sovereign states, they will be considered hostile unless they agreed to toe the established regulatory line.”
· The only criterion by which something would be available, the only test of its value, would be that someone could make money from it. This is neoliberalism – perfect freedom of choice – but unfettered markets don’t always lead to results which are beneficial to society (3.5.9).
· These characteristics make libertarianism look very similar to the idea that 'might is right' – and the neoliberal mantra, ‘greed is good’, is an unattractive depiction of human nature and society. A government which only protects the interests of the wealthy (to whom property rights are important), and which doesn't protect the interests of everybody else, is not politically acceptable to most people.
Paul Krugman’s article, Liz Truss in the Libertarian Wilderness, explained why Britain’s new Prime Minister lost political credibility so rapidly after her disastrous ‘mini-budget’ on 23 September 2022: “Truss staked out a political position that, to a first approximation, has no public support either in Britain or in the United States. So failure was inevitable.” He summarised a 2017 paper by the political scientist Lee Drutman: “most voters like government benefits, a lot. Opposition to social spending comes mainly from voters who believe that spending goes to the wrong people — people who don’t look like them.”
No society has implemented the libertarian dream, although Victorian England came close to it. Charles Dickens was very indignant about the injustices of Victorian society, and about the workhouse in particular, unforgettably depicted in his novel Oliver Twist. The injustices of Victorian society also inspired Karl Marx to try to overthrow capitalism.
(This is an archive of a page intended to form part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. The latest versions are at book contents).