Libertarianism

1. Key features of libertarianism

The central issue for libertarianism is the proper nature and justification of the state. Libertarians view the state with great suspicion and are particularly opposed to its attempts to supervise and control people’s lives, or to carry out policies in the name of social justice (see Justice). At the same time they assign to individuals strong rights to non-interference and reject the ’collectivist’ idea that people can justly be coerced into carrying out society’s goals or purposes (see Rights §3). However, in most versions of the theory it is recognized that some central authority – a minimal state – is required to protect citizens from each other and from the intrusions of other states.

All forms of libertarianism assume a ’protected sphere’ of strong personal rights to life and liberty. Opinions differ about individual rights to property. The main libertarian camp suggests that just as we have absolute rights of self-ownership, we can also form equally strong rights over external objects. However, left-wing libertarians argue that gross inequalities of property diminish the liberty of the poor. Those who possess no property will live or die at the mercy of the owners of private property. Left-wing libertarians argue that property should be distributed much less unequally or that rights to property should be qualified to achieve this effect (see Property §3).

In response, mainstream (right-wing) libertarians have suggested that the market, insurance and, as a last resort, charity, provide alternatives to state support for the poor. But of greater weight is the libertarian claim that there are certain detrimental consequences of allowing governments to regulate and redistribute property. First, any such system is very intrusive, restricting people’s freedom of choice and requiring regular investigation of individual property holdings. Second, it interrupts the efficient running of the market, distorting incentives and price mechanisms. Third, it is counterproductive: government intervention often fails to achieve its aims and has unpredicted and unwanted effects. These are all reasons to avoid state intervention.

Nevertheless a response is owed to the challenge that the poor have very little liberty. Here a distinction between liberty and ability is crucial. There are many things I am unable to do – run a mile in four minutes, for example – which cannot be said to be limitations of my liberty. For a libertarian an individual’s liberty is restricted only if some person has reduced the options available, and has done so in a way which violates that individual’s rights. So if a person has few options as an unfortunate side effect of the free and legitimate actions of others, then, while their ability to do certain things is restricted, their liberty is unimpeded. But if that person is forced to act at the point of a knife, then their options have been shaped by the rights-violating actions of another; thus their liberty has been violated. On this view, then, economic disadvantage affects ability, not liberty (see Freedom and liberty).