Another thought-provoking article from Professor Schwartz.

I mostly agree with his position and think of myself as a small-“l” or classical liberal. I agree as well that libertarianism doesn’t fit neatly in left-right political labels on issues such as gay marriage.

But as with all ideologies, the key question – which the article alludes to – is where the boundaries lie. What, if any, are the limits to free speech? Should government leave poor or sick children without free education or free healthcare? And most free-market economists accept that there are situations where the market doesn’t deliver the best outcome, and regulation or other government is in society’s interests –monopolies and polluting industries, for example.

And many exponents of so-called Libertarianism see it as a justification for preserving their own rights and interests even when these harm others – which classical liberals would not support. In the USA, libertarian arguments are often used to oppose gun tighter controls despite the massive death toll that results. On these pages, David Leyonhjelm has used them to argue for fewer speed limits on public roads.

As the humourist PJ O’Rourke said, half seriously – “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

Extreme Libertarianism, like extreme any other “ism”, can be ugly.

can be ugly.
Rhian,
It is & worse. It is a destroyer of healthy mentality that's why more & more fail to realise it !

Reading my views here over the years, many would identify me as a libertarian as my views often coincide with those of libertarians, and indeed come elections, I often preference libertarian parties as I find them the lesser evil, but -

WHY I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN:

As nicely presented by the author, the foundation of libertarianism is essentially utilitarian as it presumably produces better results, especially economic results.

Thus the underlying principle behind libertarianism is success - not freedom!
Thus libertarianism is not (as the article claims) a philosophy - but a strategy!

Where I come from, on the other hand, is the principle of Ahimsa - non-violence, a primary tenet of Hinduism and other philosophies such as Hillel's "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow".

Taking away someone else's freedom without their consent, is a form of violence and therefore it should be avoided - and in the context of politics, if a state takes away the freedom of others "in my name", in order to presumably "protect" or "benefit" me, while I remain silent and complicit because I like to enjoy that protection or any other benefits, then I become a party to that state's violence - which is morally wrong.

Once an individual truly consents to become part of a society, without coercion, then the question of violence (due to the restriction of freedom) does not arise. Should the mutually-agreed constitution of that society allow the restriction of the liberty of its members, then so be it, then let that society be socialist, capitalist, communist, conservative, libertarian - whatever, because consent was given.

- But that is not presently the case for any existing state, not even libertarian Argentina under President Javier Milei. True liberty is only in one's free choice to join a society such as a state, or not. One ought never to be automatically considered part of a society (and violently expected to follow its rules and norms) only because they happen to live in a particular geographic region.

[continued...]

[...continued]

I disagree with the author claiming that there are "natural rights" such as "life, liberty, and property" - we all know that nature does not work like that, that predators, thieves and robbers are the norm in the animal world, not to speak of stars, galaxies and black holes. Thus Ahimsa is not about being natural, but about rising morally above nature!

In the field of economics, I actually prefer social order, moderation and stability over success, expansion and progress. I believe that unchecked wild corporations can often cause more harm than governments, I believe that all advertisement for example should be heavily restricted, and that new technologies should be publicly and properly scrutinised before being allowed on the market. I also believe that reasonable taxes should be levied to ensure the peace and reduce everyone's stress due to economic anxieties: that is the kind of society I personally like to live in - BUT I would never impose this on others against their will, I will never do it violently at the expense of others who disagree with me, prefer otherwise and never consented to belong to my particular kind of society in the first place.

Thank you for reading this.

Schwartz seems to confuse Libertarianism with Liberalism- perhaps because of political bias- but a lot of what he says seems to be correct.

Libertarianism is free trade. Loosely speaking libertarianism is vote of the dollar. This is one dimension of the Liberal philosophy the other being free society.

Liberalism is based on JSM's paper "On Liberty" and John Locke's Principles Of Democracy- basically you should be free to do as you like as long as it doesn't affect the freedoms of others- this is called "negative freedom/ liberty" (as opposed to Aristotle's positive freedom by virtue). Liberalism contains both free trade and free society. Many believe in free trade but not free society or the other way around. John Locke is seen as the father of liberal democracy

____________

John Stuart Mill recognised towards the end of his paper "On Liberty" that the fact that 'everything affects everyone' provides a paradox for the concept of liberty and liberalism. I suppose since the 1900's, liberty is considered mainly based on first order effects, rather than second and third order effects, in order to manage this paradox. However the effects of this paradox become more pronounced in mass societies.

Patrick Deneen similar to the above paradox, sees faults in liberalism, and using Alexis de Touqueville's insight's, suggests a return to localised forms of society. Perhaps this localised society sub-structure could be achieved within larger super-structures.

Some futurists following Hebrew Author "Isaac Asimov's" idea Psycho-History, (or more scientifically 'Cliodynamics') have also talked about 'systemic societies' (parallel experimental societies), as being the next logical evolution in seven stages of civilization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliodynamics

Interestingly the libertarian Ayn Rand prefers Aristotelian Freedom (Virtue Based) over Mill Freedom.

Nietzsche also makes philosophical contributions to stoic/ libertarian/ existentialist/ logos/ telos like ideas. His knightly and priestly code positions are similar to the libertarian vs free society positions.