The Disposition
We should stop referring to libertarianism as a philosophy, an ideology, or even a theory of governance. It is quite simply a disposition, a frame of mind that says that errors will always be made, but if we must make them, err always on the side of liberty. Government should intervene only when the very existence of civil society is at stake. And when government does intervene, it should always tread lightly and seek to have a little impact on society as possible.
Powered by FireStats
I think I understand what you’re getting at here…
You understand libertarianism to be more of a lack of government than an affirmative ideology. Individuals who advocate for libertarianism may, incidentally, have affirmative views of the human condition and life and may actually want to create value with the freedom libertarianism allows. But this is in no way a necessary, nor logical aspect of it. The property owner can sit on his property and do nothing (i.e. let good soil go to waste) or he can produce something (i.e. fruit), ideally something innovative, creative and purposeful. Ultimately the choice is his/hers and libertarianism says offers no value judgment to either.
I think, although I’m not entirely sure, that this is why Ayn Rand had a problem with calling herself a libertarian. She and the philosophy she espoused were more than that. Objectivism calls for not only staying out of other people lives via force but also “forcing yourself” (I use that term very loosely…so maybe ‘actively choosing’ is a better substitute) to be the human ideal.
“when the very existence of civil society is at stake” … “tread lightly” … “little impact” …
Nicky is right, but the bigger problem for Rand was that a “disposition” is incapable of defining what the above denote. Libertarianism cannot provide an objective standard by which to measure them. Their only standard is that liberty has always worked well in the past. But that standard does not work in situations never encountered before, such as financing a government the size our country would need without using force to take property.
They cannot deal with this question, because they have no clear and unequivocal ethical mandate. They have muddied the connection between ethics and politics in order to attract more warm bodies to their big tent. So, instead of holding out for no force at all, ever, they constantly settle for less force. But without a standard even for defining “less”, their flank is forever exposed to the advocates of creeping tyranny.
Rand had no such problem. A politics absolutely free of initiated force was an inevitable logical conclusion of her philosophical premises. Her ethics holds freedom as man’s highest political value and force initiated for gain as its only enemy. Therefore, the proper method to finance a government without initiating force is: however best you can when such an opportunity arises. And if you can’t, you will not get a moral government.
While Libertarians could adopt this same principle, they could also just as easily opt for an excise tax or minimal sales tax or mandatory user fee, etc. etc. ad infinitum.