- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 9,336
- Reaction score
- 4,849
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Despite potentially vast differences in outcome - and often therefore considerable antipathy between the two groups - both libertarianism and liberalism share the common basic foundation of emphasis on individuals' liberty.
As I see it, there are two main differences between the two ideologies, and I want to focus on the second here:
I want to focus on the second because I think it's the one where the difference of opinion is most understandable, because while I believe that the libertarian ideal - that societies should not have public education or healthcare or scientific funding or space programs or the like - is indeed somewhat arbitrary, it's impossible to deny that the liberal approach will inevitably force things upon some citizens without their explicit consent. Even if 90% of the population believed that public funding for scientific research is a good thing, there's still that 10% being taxed for something they don't want. Even if 90% of the population believed that speed limits are a good thing, there's still that 10% having their freedom restricted even though they had not (yet) harmed anyone.
Obviously, there's considerable overlap there - many if not most libertarians would support speed limits, for example - and that's a big part of the reason why I consider a strictly limited government to be an arbitrary, or at best subjective ideal.
But the point is that both ideologies involve deciding how other people are governed: Are we to be governed, to some level of approximation and restraint, by what most people in society actually want? Or are we to be governed under the sterner restraints which some possibly long-dead minority lays down out of genuine, and perhaps well-founded fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'?
In that light it seems to me that a key issue, if either ideology is to be internally consistent, must be that of tacit consent: People must have the option of choosing not only a different ruling party, but a different form of government to live under. I'm not sure there are any perfect answers here, but this line of thinking gives rise to a few questions which I for one find quite interesting.
A > Should electoral systems, constitutions and the like be open to referendum every quarter-century or so, so that each generation has their say in their form of government?
B > Should we aim towards more open migration policies and, potentially, more economic equality between nations, so that individuals have more options from year to year under what kind of government they'll live?
C > Can it be reasonably argued that, for example, simply taking a job and benefitting from/participating in a society is enough to constitute tacit consent to its regulations?
D > If so (or even if not), should a nation leave enough leeway that people, if they want to, can live quietly in the wilderness with no interactions - even ones that benefit them - with the rest of society? If so, what happens if more people decide to do that than there is wilderness to accomodate them? If not, what gives any arbitrarily-delineated society the right to claim complete dominion over all the land it does, so that no-one can even live there without suffering their regulations?
E > Should there be options available for people - not necessarily limited by pre-existing boundaries such as the American states - to withdraw from an existing government and create their own? If so, how might it be accomplished? If not, why not?
What do y'all think?
As I see it, there are two main differences between the two ideologies, and I want to focus on the second here:
1 > Libertarianism (by which I mean modern/American/'right-wing' libertarianism) emphasises or maintains as a fundamental 'right' the notion of private property, whereas liberalism sees private property - since, by its very nature, it involves restriction of others' freedom - as a secondary, socially-derived concept which is legitimated only by the consent of the governed.
2 > Libertarianism then proposes limits on what a society can/should do collectively, as a society, through their government, restricting it essentially to protection of citizens' lives, liberties, wellbeing and properties; whereas liberalism entails no such arbitrary restrictions.
2 > Libertarianism then proposes limits on what a society can/should do collectively, as a society, through their government, restricting it essentially to protection of citizens' lives, liberties, wellbeing and properties; whereas liberalism entails no such arbitrary restrictions.
I want to focus on the second because I think it's the one where the difference of opinion is most understandable, because while I believe that the libertarian ideal - that societies should not have public education or healthcare or scientific funding or space programs or the like - is indeed somewhat arbitrary, it's impossible to deny that the liberal approach will inevitably force things upon some citizens without their explicit consent. Even if 90% of the population believed that public funding for scientific research is a good thing, there's still that 10% being taxed for something they don't want. Even if 90% of the population believed that speed limits are a good thing, there's still that 10% having their freedom restricted even though they had not (yet) harmed anyone.
Obviously, there's considerable overlap there - many if not most libertarians would support speed limits, for example - and that's a big part of the reason why I consider a strictly limited government to be an arbitrary, or at best subjective ideal.
But the point is that both ideologies involve deciding how other people are governed: Are we to be governed, to some level of approximation and restraint, by what most people in society actually want? Or are we to be governed under the sterner restraints which some possibly long-dead minority lays down out of genuine, and perhaps well-founded fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'?
In that light it seems to me that a key issue, if either ideology is to be internally consistent, must be that of tacit consent: People must have the option of choosing not only a different ruling party, but a different form of government to live under. I'm not sure there are any perfect answers here, but this line of thinking gives rise to a few questions which I for one find quite interesting.
A > Should electoral systems, constitutions and the like be open to referendum every quarter-century or so, so that each generation has their say in their form of government?
B > Should we aim towards more open migration policies and, potentially, more economic equality between nations, so that individuals have more options from year to year under what kind of government they'll live?
C > Can it be reasonably argued that, for example, simply taking a job and benefitting from/participating in a society is enough to constitute tacit consent to its regulations?
D > If so (or even if not), should a nation leave enough leeway that people, if they want to, can live quietly in the wilderness with no interactions - even ones that benefit them - with the rest of society? If so, what happens if more people decide to do that than there is wilderness to accomodate them? If not, what gives any arbitrarily-delineated society the right to claim complete dominion over all the land it does, so that no-one can even live there without suffering their regulations?
E > Should there be options available for people - not necessarily limited by pre-existing boundaries such as the American states - to withdraw from an existing government and create their own? If so, how might it be accomplished? If not, why not?
What do y'all think?
Last edited: