An introduction to the Libertarian Perspective:
Libertarianism is an issue based political philosophy steeped in principles that the individual is sovereign over himself or herself. Libertarianism believes that the uninhibited individual is the freest of persons, and that only the freest of persons can, and will, arouse the highest of human faculties to achieve the very essence of a human being. This notion is what Libertarians call Liberty. For Libertarians, Liberty encompasses an entire viewpoint of the individual starting with human nature leading to the material and then into the communal.
With this said, Liberty starts with what humans want most, the freedom to live. However, a Libertarian sees a human being with material and intellectual bounds to survival. In order to survive those obstacles must be overcome. Since all humans are creatures of survival, an individual must have maximum freedom in the pursuit of survival if he is to survive. As a Libertarian sees it, the restriction of freedom is tantamount to restricting survival, with the ultimate restriction of freedom being the denial of survival. Meanwhile, from a position of maximized freedom an individual is free to choose whichever path he sees fit because he has determined for himself which path will lead best to his survival. Even if the choices of an individual’s pursuit may appear vile, degrading, or foreign to an observer, an individual’s path is his own, and must not be deterred by unduly regulation and authority. No other individual through force or coercion has a right to interfere or alter another’s path regardless whether Liberty takes an individual to the highest peaks or sees them wallowing in mud. The choice that each individual makes is representative of what best suits that individual; that is, only the individual can determine what is in his own good and how best to obtain it. Obviously then, the expression of maximized Liberty is an expression of individualism. Hence why the individual is sovereign in Libertarianism; he is inherently in possession of a life, with a right to Liberty, and a pursuit of survival in the most desired way.
Nonetheless, while by definition the individualism found in Libertarianism is a self-centered worldview, the Libertarian notion of Liberty should never be confused or coupled with the survival of the fittest notion inherent in the strictest view of individualism. Such individualism as the later is anarchical in nature, as it seeks no bounds on individual action whatsoever whereas the Libertarian concept has individual rights taking upon natural boundaries. In addition, the Libertarian view sees the self-interest of survival as the source of interaction, trade, business, exchange, and society.
Consider that in a practical world, if each person has unrestricted freedom, and two or more individuals come into contact, it may occur where one individual’s freedom may inhibit the actions of another individual’s freedom. In such cases, if the parties involved don’t annihilate one another (as might happen with unchecked individualism), a compromise over Liberty must be reached. The primary quality of compromise is the individual is never lost in the arrangement. The individual is owner, at least in part, of the results of the agreement. With personal involvement of each individual, compromise will naturally seek to maximize freedom for all involved, for no sane human seeks to limit their own Liberty. Therefore, the self-entering compromise is a just and natural abridgement of Liberty, as long as there was no trickery, coercion, or force employed to make the compromise.
The second method of curtailing Liberty originates properly from the first. The use of authority is most familiar, and incidentally, the most dangerous to the curtailing of individual Liberty. Authority is any person or group that can demonstrate control over another’s Liberty. In society it is accepted that only the recognized authority has the power to limit Liberty; thereby, in the social context, authority is exemplified by the police or by lawmakers not by just any one attempting to wield control over another. This is to say however, the difference between the two is that a true authority is one that was ceded power, through the use of compromise (voting) while any other who attempts to impose authority is nothing short of a dictator, a tyrant, or warlord.
Thereupon, the rationale for subjection by a recognized authority originates within the principle that the restriction of those who would seek to restrict others is just so long at the authority itself does not become what it’s erected to prohibit. Thus, even recognized authority must uphold this principle of protecting the maximization of Liberty otherwise they are rejecting that which upholds their justification for existence and to warrant so much power over another. Thus, while no one should wish, nor has a right, to restrict another’s freedom any quicker than they wish to have their own restricted, Libertarianism has rationally concluded that a recognized authority may abridge Liberty. As a result, there are two situations that are acceptable on how Liberty can be limited. One, Liberty may be restricted by the individual himself through compromise. The second, a recognized authority may restrict Liberty if at some point in time, the individual accepted said authority through compromise, even if indirectly. In any event, once the measures for curtailing Liberty are in place, the foundation for a law and thereby a civilized society is created. Nevertheless, while Libertarians will acquiesce to the philosophical justifications for imposing limitations upon individual Liberty, the practice of imposing those limits is quite another matter.
As already been stated, compromise is not an unjust imposition on Liberty since the individual does it of their own accord; Incidentally, the self-entering compromise is the foundation of commerce and market economies. Therefore, it is only through the actions of authority that need further explanation since the imposition upon individual can, at times, be far removed from the individual’s direct wish or even knowledge. In other words, the further the ability to govern is removed from the individual, the more likely that injustice will be done to the individual by an unduly restriction of Liberty. Finding the appropriate and justified use of authority is at the heart of what separates political philosophies and the mode of governance.
For some, the application of authority is acceptable for promoting social changes by restricting and penalizing certain actions or by rewarding others. This perspective champions goals that are advanced as being in the ‘public interest’ or the ‘public good.’ In this perspective it is thought that ultimately, authority, which is comprised of every participating individual, will advance the whole group of individuals, i.e. society, in place of just singular individuals. As a result of such unrestrained use of authority, individual Liberty is sacrificed much more liberally as the public is made to conform to a determined agenda, an agenda that may or may not be in accordance with the desires of the individuals overseen. Nonetheless, as long as the individual relinquishes Liberty to the authority, the social order can be maintained.
Meanwhile it is true that a citizen with a vote does engage, even if in a minuscule fashion, of direct participation of the authority that oversees him, and that participation is enough to warrant his subservience to that authority. In other words, because of this ability to participate in how authority is administered, an individual is required to give allegiance by abiding by the decrees of the authority. In Democracy, this notion is often referred to as Majority Rule or Rule by the Majority.
However, the aforementioned notion to governance can easily lead to tyranny of the majority, rather than its intended Rule by the Majority. The argument can easily be made that if the vote is contrary to the wishes of the individual, the individual is once again in a situation where his Liberty is sacrificed for the purposes of another, and furthermore against his own choosing. Thereupon a crossroads takes place. While an individual has the right, and the duty, to not tolerate any infringement of his Liberty should the restrictions being imposed were not of his doing nor of his choosing, in the view of Democracy, an individual must choose to obey the authority, either that or he may follow his own path and suffer the consequences when not acting in accordance with the authority. Thus, when this situation occurs in Democracy, that individual is in the minority and has no exercisable Liberty other than what is dictated to him.
Residing in the minority, the individual will come to see himself at odds with the authority, even despite his best efforts to participate, and he will come to feel alienated. Not surprisingly, alienation is a dangerous situation if continued. In such a state, each action of authority that is contrary to the individual’s desires only drives a further wedge between the loyalties an individual has to the authority versus the loyalties to himself. Eventually there will be a disagreement between the individual and authority that cannot be tolerated. Dwelling too long in the minority, and believing himself to be governed contrary to his purposes, the individual will soon come to the point of willful, open defiance. Thus if the end result of using authority too willingly is alienation which then leads to rebelliousness, for all intents and purposes to improve Liberty, such blatant use of authority to regulate Liberty and to direct and control society is politically unstable to say the least.
Thereby, it is reasonable that for the sake of political stability the exercising of authority is to be minimal. If authority exists to protect the maximization of freedom for individual Liberty, the proper use of authority, as Libertarians define it, is if in cases where failure to act would result in less Liberty for even one individual, an authority may act. While this may seem a rather vague guideline, the actual use of authority is actually seldom.
Libertarians adopt ‘a live and let live’ policy to applying authority. Specifically, the potential for harm to be done to Liberty is greatly different than actual harm to Liberty. Since mistakes in action become lessons for future actions, individuals must be allowed to have freedom to make mistakes otherwise there can be no freedom for right action. A person cannot be forced into action that he would willingly choose. Yet conversely, if he doesn’t choose a certain path, an individual should not be forced to choose. To do so would force the individual from his ability to learn by his own choosing what is in his best interest. Thereby, if an individual cannot determine for himself what is in his best interest, and instead must seek authority for direction, and that person loses his independence. As already explained, the loss of independence with the liberal application of authority is political unstable. Consequently, although an individual inevitably will suffer ramifications contrary to his purposes, if the individual has not directly injured the Liberty of another, there can be no case made to restrict his Liberty for his own good.
This is the essence of Libertarianism.
|