Liberty Alone

“Liberalism”, originally a derogatory term itself, stemmed (at least etymologically) from enlightenment ideals of freedom, the rule of law and constitutionally limited authority / government.

Hence the liberal canon of thinkers such as Locke, Smith, Mill and so on.

In the last century, for various strange yet boring political reasons, people began to misuse the term, extending it to varieties of new and popular statism. Thus, the term “libertarian” was re-adapted to refer to ideas fitting the original, or “classical”, liberalism; whilst those who had appropriated the term for statist sentiments decided to call themselves “reformed liberals”, “progressive liberals”, or a variety of other entirely meaningless terms.

Personally I consider myself a liberal and a libertarian. I prefer the term ‘liberal’ as it refers to a wide ideology, whereas ‘libertarian’ implies a sole concern with liberty – and whilst liberty is pivotal to my thinking, it does not define all of it. As an example, like liberals in the nineteenth-century I vehemently believe in high educational opportunities for all children – and this is not purely a principle of liberty.

Libertarianism, despite the name, seems to me all too frequently to be primarily concerned not with liberty but with property. The answer to any conflict of interests or rights seems to be to ask whose property is at stake; to extend property rights to settle any possible future diputes; and in the end to make every man a tyrant in his own land and a slave everywhere else.

Every tyrant around the world would then be a perfect libertarian if he happened to own all the land. (And who is to say he doesn’t - where does land ownership come from other than by the recognition of a government.)

‘One way to look at libertarianism is that it is liberalism taken to its logical conclusion…’ Well that may be a way to look at it but it is entirely wrong. Libertarianism is a particularly crabbed and selfish sub-set of Liberalism.

Frankly, you do not appear to be master of the ideological history of your own Party but I am disinclined to give you a book list. If you are going to try some McCarthyite witch-hunting for social democrats in the Liberal Democrats I suggest you do two things. First read the preamble to the Liberal Democrat Constitution and secondly re-read the comment by the nice gentleman from the Libertarian Party.

You will then see that he is right. You are in the wrong Party. Bugger off.

Kelvin:

I’m sorry, but I think you’re wrong.
The preamble actually sounds very libertarian to me. Those aims are what libertarians want, we just realise that the state cannot guarantee them through the use of forced redistribution.

I’d also suggest you read up on Herbert Spencer and Auberon Herbert. Or perhaps even JS Mill (although he was somewhat flawed at times).

Joe/Tinter:

What is Property?
There is disagreement over the whole property question amongst libertarians. The one area they are 100% agreed upon is that you own yourself and have the right to the full product of your labour.
After that you have the Georgists/geolibertarians who favour a tax on the unimproved value of land, thus leaving the profits of the mixing of your labour with land.
There’s the mutualists and Proudhonists who take a view more along the lines that property is that which you are using, if you cease to use it then you forfeit rights to it.
Left-Rothbardians seem take a Lockean view of property rights, but acknowledge that the current situation is the result of theft and violence (hence Rothbard’s advocation of essentially giving the workers ownership of state owned business).

True, there are those who call themselves libertarians who would take the view that if one person owned all the property then that would be fine if he was libertarian - but that is not a very consistent view - how could one come to own all the property without resorting to the use of force against others? You would have to own all others as slaves to deny them ownership of the product of their labour.

I have a hunch that property rights actually come from the society and community you live in rather than the state.

Unfortunately I think libertarianism has been given a bad name by corporatists and right-wing demagogues who seek to justify the status quo (just as the reputation of the anti-statist socialists has been destroyed by state-socialists).

There’s also the never-ending confusion over terminology. Is capitalism the exploitation of the worker by the controllers of capital or a system founded on voluntary exchange of goods by all people? Is socialism a statist, totalitarian ideology or a system of free equitable distribution?

Everyone:
I know the LibDems will never be a party in line with many of my views. It is not a libertarian party and I don’t think it ever will be. I personally don’t think that a libertarian party would serve my interests either, its too likely to end up as a corporatist shill or become dominated by the right, something which the LibDems are far less likely to do.

Can somebody point me in the right direction to find out more about left-rothbardian positions. My limited knowledge led me to believe he was an anarco-capitalist who said “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarcism and visa versa”. Who can help?

Sorry Tristan, much of that post was just addressing more general themes and other commentors. The kicking people out was more aimed at some social democrats, although I have heard classical liberals say the same sort of thing- but not you in either case. The rest of my rant probably rests on knowing too many trots!

As to libertarianism, while I personally don’t agree with left-libertarians I have time for them, and agree with them on a number of issues. However, the movement as a whole *is* very strongly associated with the right, and that includes in my dealings with people outside the Lib Dems, where it is generally taken to mean “ultra-tory”. Indeed, people sometimes ask if I am one in a very accusatory tone! Given this is often still the case I think the name may be beyond salvage.

At first I was tempted by this rationale, then I rejected it completely before I had second thoughts and said well maybe partially.

The problem for me is that I’m a firm believer in multi-polar decentralism and I accept there is a place for anybody (hopefully, but not realistically everybody) in our party, provided that they can abide by the rules and preferably if they are willing to participate in the creation and upkeep of them.

This is because ideology is less important to me than results - I want to win. Even though (and probably because) I know one doesn’t come without the other I see balance as essential in reaching solid and lasting outcomes.

So yes, libertarianism is entirely compatible with liberalism and indeed is essential in balancing the statist aspects of residual social democracy within the party.

Without any individual contributions from the factional ideologies and philosophies within our party the quality of our internal debate would be reduced, so I can only offer encouragement. We need to be intellectually curious in investigating all avenues for positive applications to our armoury, we need to be be rigorous in any self-appraisal or criticism and we need to be open to all methods which advance our shared causes.

Perhaps it is because in my analysis I don’t see the party as a vehicle for ideology, but as a human movement which encompasses and integrates all our ideas into a coherent whole.

So, [muted] yay.