≡× MENU

• Water supply
• Pumps
• Water purification
• Wells
• Filters

What is libertarianism in simple terms. What are libertarians and libertarians? Several myths about the market. The market will decide, or why the natural spontaneous order is better than the state

Due to the fact that specific forms of libertarianism contain ideas not only about due law, but also about a proper state, these forms are attributed not only to legal, but also to political philosophy.

Libertarianism in the Western tradition includes a wide range of ideologies and movements - from the right en to the left.

History of the term

In Russia, along with the term "libertarianism" in a close meaning, the term "libertarian legal understanding of law" is also used, introduced into science by Academician V.S.Nersesyants and his followers (Chetvernin V.A. et al.). [ ]

Libertarian philosophy

The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression

Libertarianism is based on the principle of self-ownership, that is, the natural right of every person to freely dispose of his own body and the objects of property produced or received in the course of a voluntary exchange of property. The principle of non-aggression naturally follows from the principle of self-ownership in libertarianism, that is, the belief that any involuntary violence against another person or his property is illegitimate.

Non-aggression principle ( Nap - the non-aggression principle) is described as the foundation of modern libertarian philosophy. This is a legal (not moral) position that prohibits aggressive violence against a person and his property.

Since the principle redefines aggression from a libertarian perspective, the use of the non-aggression principle as a justification for libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and obfuscation in order to hide the violent nature of the libertarian approach to property rights protection. The principle of non-aggression is used to justify the inadmissibility of such institutions as punishment for crime without a victim, taxation and conscription.

State

There is controversy among libertarians as to whether the state is legitimate. Some libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) view the prohibition on "aggressive violence" as absolute and admitting no exceptions even for civil servants. In their view, forms of government interference such as taxation and antitrust regulation are examples of theft and robbery and therefore should be abolished. Protection of citizens from violence should be carried out by private security agencies, and helping the poor should be the task of charity.

Another part of libertarians (minarchists) accepts the prohibition of “aggressive violence” as an important principle, but considers it necessary or inevitable for the existence of a tax-enforced state whose sole task would be to protect the life, health and private property of citizens. The difference between this and the previous approach to libertarianism is that in the first case, the prohibition is absolute and refers to each specific action, and in the second, the task of minimizing violence in society is posed, for the solution of which the state is regarded as the lesser evil.

The difference between the pillars of libertarianism is that in the first case, the prohibition on aggressive violence is absolute and refers to each specific action, and in the second, the task of systematically minimizing violence in society is set, for the solution of which the state is considered the lesser evil. Due to the fact that the specific listed reflections of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism and minarchism) contain ideas not only about proper law (prohibition of aggressive violence), but also about a proper state, these forms relate not only to legal, but also to political philosophy.

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy believed that the disagreement over whether the state is immoral between anarcho-capitalists who hold views of human consciousness and the nature of values ​​of Murray Rothbard and minarchists who hold views of human consciousness and the nature of Ayn Rand's values. does not arise from different interpretations of a common moral position. He argued that the disagreement between these two groups is the result of different ideas about the nature of human consciousness, and that each group draws correct conclusions from its premises. Thus, these two groups do not make errors in the output. correct interpretation any ethical position, since they do not have a common ethical position.

Ownership

Libertarians are supporters of private property. Libertarians claim that Natural resources"Can be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, confuses their labor with them, or simply approves them as their own - without the consent of others and any payment to them." Libertarians believe that natural resources are not initially used by anyone, and therefore private parties can use them at their discretion without anyone's consent and any taxes, such as a tax on the value of land.

Libertarians believe that societies that respect private property rights are ethical and lead to the best possible results. They support the free market and are not opposed to any concentration of economic power in anyone's hands, provided that this does not happen through coercive means like money made through ties to the state.

Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economic Thought

Libertarianism is sometimes confused with the Austrian school of economic thought, which draws conclusions about the inefficiency and devastating consequences of government intervention in the economy. While most libertarians in economics follow the Austrian school, this identification is misleading. Libertarianism is a political and legal doctrine containing recipes for reorganizing society, primarily in the field of legislation. This is the doctrine of what is due, prescribing certain norms of behavior for people, and especially for civil servants. Austrian economic theory, on the contrary, does not have a normative character, being an instrument of cognition of cause-and-effect relationships in economics. By concluding, for example, that a protectionist customs regime reduces the number of benefits available to the population of the country where it is applied, it remains a value-neutral science and does not make calls for changes in legislation and policy.

Political views of modern libertarians

• Libertarians believe that people have only the right to freedom from encroachment on their identity or property, and laws should only ensure that freedom, as well as the execution of freely concluded contracts.
• Libertarians believe that taxation is immoral, essentially no different from robbery, and therefore taxation should be replaced by voluntary methods of financing the services the government currently provides to the population. Such services can be provided by private businesses, charitable organizations and other organizations. They oppose any government subsidies, for example, to agricultural producers. Libertarians oppose customs duties and other types of foreign trade barriers.
• Libertarians oppose government controls over the safety and efficacy of medicines, all or most of the zoning rules.
• Libertarians oppose statutory minimum wages.
• Libertarians are staunch opponents of universal conscription. They oppose military interference in the affairs of other countries and only recognize protection from aggression.
• Libertarians object to any government control of the media.
• Some libertarians oppose immigration restrictions.
• Some libertarians oppose compulsory school laws.
• Libertarians oppose gun bans.
• One of the easily recognizable demands of the libertarians - ambiguously perceived by society, but quite naturally arising from the general concept - is the demand for the full legalization of all or most drugs.
• Some of the right-wing libertarians support the idea of ​​"voluntary" (contract) slavery, which is criticized by representatives of social movements of the left-libertarian (social-anarchist) persuasion.

Publicist Tom Hartmann notes that according to a study conducted by Pew Research, only 11% of people who claim to be libertarian understand the essence of libertarianism, in particular, that it advocates increased personal freedom and reduced government control. So 41% of such people believe that the state should regulate business, 38% support social benefits for low-income people, 42% believe that the police should have the right to stop “suspicious people”.

Contemporary libertarian organizations

Since the 1950s, many American libertarian organizations have formed, adopting a free market position and supporting civil liberties and foreign policy without interference. These include the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Francisco Marroquin University, Foundation for Economic Education, Center for Libertarian Studies, and International organization"Liberty". Launched in 2001, the Free State Project works to bring 20,000 libertarians to New Hampshire and thereby influence government policy. Active student organizations include freedom students and young Americans for freedom.

People who have made a significant impact on philosophy

see also

Notes (edit)

1. Libertarian // Online Etymology Dictionary
2. David F. Nolan - Libertarian (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved June 18, 2010. Archived June 16, 2008.
3. James W. Harris. Frequently Asked Questions ABOUT The World’s Smallest Political Quiz Archived March 28, 2010 at the Wayback Machine (inaccessible link from 26-05-2013 - story , copy)
4. Murray bookchin. The Real Roots of Traditional Libertarianism// "The Forms of Freedom" talk, 1985.
5. The Non-Aggression Principle, Americanly yours... Retrieved October 22, 2018.
6. Clay... The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 | Stephan Kinsella (eng.), Mises Institute(4 October 2011). Retrieved October 22, 2018.
7. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R. A Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1007. ISBN 1412988764. There are three main camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism; the extent to which they represent different ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme is disputed by scholars.
8. Becker, Lawrence S .; Becker, Charlotte B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics. 3. New York: Rutledge. p. 1562.
9. Rothbard, Murray (1998). Ethics of freedom. New York: NYU Press Office. ISBN 978-0814775066.
10. von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Indianapolis: Freedom Foundation. ISBN 978-0865976313.
11. Walter Block... Libertarianism and Libertinism
12. Jessica Flanigan. Three Reasons Against Prescription Drugs. InLiberty.ru.
13. Chandran Kukathas. Immigration and Freedom. InLiberty.ru.
14. Tighter firearms controls and public safety. Gary Mauser
15. David Bergland. Libertarianism in One Lesson (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved September 17, 2012. Archived December 16, 2012.
16. Brian Doherty. The World War on Drugs: A Century of Failure and Fruitless Efforts (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved May 16, 2014. Archived November 29, 2014.

Due to the fact that specific forms of libertarianism contain ideas not only about due law, but also about a proper state, these forms are attributed not only to legal, but also to political philosophy.

Libertarianism in the Western tradition includes a wide range of ideologies and movements - from the right en to the left.

History of the term

In Russia, along with the term "libertarianism" in a close meaning, the term "libertarian legal understanding of law" is also used, introduced into science by Academician V.S.Nersesyants and his followers (Chetvernin V.A. et al.). [ ]

Libertarian philosophy

The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression

Libertarianism is based on the principle of self-ownership, that is, the natural right of every person to freely dispose of his own body and the objects of property produced or received in the course of a voluntary exchange of property. The principle of non-aggression naturally follows from the principle of self-ownership in libertarianism, that is, the belief that any involuntary violence against another person or his property is illegitimate.

Non-aggression principle ( Nap - the non-aggression principle) is described as the foundation of modern libertarian philosophy. This is a legal (not moral) position that prohibits aggressive violence against a person and his property.

Since the principle redefines aggression from a libertarian perspective, the use of the non-aggression principle as a justification for libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and obfuscation in order to hide the violent nature of the libertarian approach to property rights protection. The principle of non-aggression is used to justify the inadmissibility of such institutions as punishment for crime without a victim, taxation and conscription.

State

There is controversy among libertarians as to whether the state is legitimate. Some libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) view the prohibition on "aggressive violence" as absolute and admitting no exceptions even for civil servants. In their view, forms of government interference such as taxation and antitrust regulation are examples of theft and robbery and therefore should be abolished. Protection of citizens from violence should be carried out by private security agencies, and helping the poor should be the task of charity.

Another part of libertarians (minarchists) accepts the prohibition of “aggressive violence” as an important principle, but considers it necessary or inevitable for the existence of a tax-enforced state whose sole task would be to protect the life, health and private property of citizens. The difference between this and the previous approach to libertarianism is that in the first case, the prohibition is absolute and refers to each specific action, and in the second, the task of minimizing violence in society is posed, for the solution of which the state is regarded as the lesser evil.

The difference between the pillars of libertarianism is that in the first case, the prohibition on aggressive violence is absolute and refers to each specific action, and in the second, the task of systematically minimizing violence in society is set, for the solution of which the state is considered the lesser evil. Due to the fact that the specific listed reflections of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism and minarchism) contain ideas not only about proper law (prohibition of aggressive violence), but also about a proper state, these forms relate not only to legal, but also to political philosophy.

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy believed that the disagreement over whether the state is immoral between anarcho-capitalists who hold views of human consciousness and the nature of values ​​of Murray Rothbard and minarchists who hold views of human consciousness and the nature of Ayn Rand's values. does not arise from different interpretations of a common moral position. He argued that the disagreement between these two groups is the result of different ideas about the nature of human consciousness, and that each group draws correct conclusions from its premises. Thus, these two groups do not make mistakes in arriving at the correct interpretation of any ethical position, since they do not have a common ethical position.

Ownership

Libertarians are supporters of private property. Libertarians argue that natural resources "can be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes their labor with them, or simply approves them as their own - without the consent of others and any payment to them." Libertarians believe that natural resources are not initially used by anyone, and therefore private parties can use them at their discretion without anyone's consent and any taxes, such as a tax on the value of land.

Libertarians believe that societies that respect private property rights are ethical and lead to the best possible results. They support the free market and are not opposed to any concentration of economic power in anyone's hands, provided that this does not happen through coercive means like money made through ties to the state.

Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economic Thought

Libertarianism is sometimes confused with the Austrian school of economic thought, which draws conclusions about the inefficiency and devastating consequences of government intervention in the economy. While most libertarians in economics follow the Austrian school, this identification is misleading. Libertarianism is a political and legal doctrine containing recipes for reorganizing society, primarily in the field of legislation. This is the doctrine of what is due, prescribing certain norms of behavior for people, and especially for civil servants. Austrian economic theory, on the contrary, does not have a normative character, being an instrument of cognition of cause-and-effect relationships in economics. By concluding, for example, that a protectionist customs regime reduces the number of benefits available to the population of the country where it is applied, it remains a value-neutral science and does not make calls for changes in legislation and policy.

Political views of modern libertarians

• Libertarians believe that people have only the right to freedom from encroachment on their identity or property, and laws should only ensure that freedom, as well as the execution of freely concluded contracts.
• Libertarians believe that taxation is immoral, essentially no different from robbery, and therefore taxation should be replaced by voluntary methods of financing the services the government currently provides to the population. Such services can be provided by private businesses, charitable organizations and other organizations. They oppose any government subsidies, for example, to agricultural producers. Libertarians oppose customs duties and other types of foreign trade barriers.
• Libertarians oppose government controls over the safety and efficacy of medicines, all or most of the zoning rules.
• Libertarians oppose statutory minimum wages.
• Libertarians are staunch opponents of universal conscription. They oppose military interference in the affairs of other countries and only recognize protection from aggression.
• Libertarians object to any government control of the media.
• Some libertarians oppose immigration restrictions.
• Some libertarians oppose compulsory school laws.
• Libertarians oppose gun bans.
• One of the easily recognizable demands of the libertarians - ambiguously perceived by society, but quite naturally arising from the general concept - is the demand for the full legalization of all or most drugs.
• Some of the right-wing libertarians support the idea of ​​"voluntary" (contract) slavery, which is criticized by representatives of social movements of the left-libertarian (social-anarchist) persuasion.

Publicist Tom Hartmann notes that according to a study conducted by Pew Research, only 11% of people who claim to be libertarian understand the essence of libertarianism, in particular, that it advocates increased personal freedom and reduced government control. So 41% of such people believe that the state should regulate business, 38% support social benefits for low-income people, 42% believe that the police should have the right to stop “suspicious people”.

Contemporary libertarian organizations

Since the 1950s, many American libertarian organizations have formed, adopting a free market position and supporting civil liberties and foreign policy without interference. These include the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Francisco Marroquin University, the Foundation for Economic Education, the Center for Libertarian Studies, and Liberty International. Launched in 2001, the Free State Project works to bring 20,000 libertarians to New Hampshire and thereby influence government policy. Active student organizations include freedom students and young Americans for freedom.

People who have made a significant impact on philosophy

see also

Notes (edit)

1. Libertarian // Online Etymology Dictionary
2. David F. Nolan - Libertarian (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved June 18, 2010. Archived June 16, 2008.
3. James W. Harris. Frequently Asked Questions ABOUT The World’s Smallest Political Quiz Archived March 28, 2010 at the Wayback Machine (inaccessible link from 26-05-2013 - story , copy)
4. Murray bookchin. The Real Roots of Traditional Libertarianism// "The Forms of Freedom" talk, 1985.
5. The Non-Aggression Principle, Americanly yours... Retrieved October 22, 2018.
6. Clay... The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 | Stephan Kinsella (eng.), Mises Institute(4 October 2011). Retrieved October 22, 2018.
7. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R. A Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1007. ISBN 1412988764. There are three main camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism; the extent to which they represent different ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme is disputed by scholars.
8. Becker, Lawrence S .; Becker, Charlotte B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics. 3. New York: Rutledge. p. 1562.
9. Rothbard, Murray (1998). Ethics of freedom. New York: NYU Press Office. ISBN 978-0814775066.
10. von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Indianapolis: Freedom Foundation. ISBN 978-0865976313.
11. Walter Block... Libertarianism and Libertinism
12. Jessica Flanigan. Three Reasons Against Prescription Drugs. InLiberty.ru.
13. Chandran Kukathas. Immigration and Freedom. InLiberty.ru.
14. Tighter firearms controls and public safety. Gary Mauser
15. David Bergland. Libertarianism in One Lesson (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved September 17, 2012. Archived December 16, 2012.
16. Brian Doherty. The World War on Drugs: A Century of Failure and Fruitless Efforts (unavailable link - story) ... Retrieved May 16, 2014. Archived November 29, 2014.

🔊 Listen to the post

When people hear the word libertarians, they often associate two words with them: Svetov and Durov. Mikhail Svetov is one of the most charismatic personalities in the libertarian movement, and Pavel Durov is the most famous libertarian in Russia.

Humanity is enslaved by organized criminal groups calling themselves "states." Pavel Durov

Someone may even have heard the common ma'am: “Regards, your colleague, white libertarian.

Mikhail Svetov is the most charismatic libertarian in Russia.

It was after Mikhail Svetov's inspirational, incendiary speech at a rally against RosKomNadzor and for Telegram and the free Internet that many people in Russia learned about the existence of libertarians. Take a look:

So what exactly is this libertarianism?

In short:

Libertarianism is freedom for everyone!

The core of libertarianism is Principle of Non-Aggression(PNA - NAP) - non-use of violence, except for the protection of oneself and one's property. All other forms of violence are illegitimate in libertarianism. Therefore, libertarians are against any forced payments levied by the state - such as taxes, insurance contributions (retirement, "free" medical assistance).

Who is a libertarian?

According to the American Dictionary of English,

A libertarian is one who advocates maximizing the rights of the individual and minimizing the rights of the state.

Libertarians are for reducing the influence of the state and for the development of each individual. As David Friedman said in The Mechanics of Freedom:

The central idea of ​​libertarianism is to give everyone the opportunity to manage their lives as they want.

Or as David Boz said in 1997 in his book On Libertarianism:

Libertarianism is a vision of a world in which everyone has the right to live his life in any way he chooses, provided that he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend the right of every person to life, liberty, and the right to property, which people originally had before the formation of the state. In the libertarian world, all human relationships must be voluntary; the only acts that should be prohibited by law are those that include initiating the use of force against those who themselves have not used such coercive acts as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping and fraud.

What constitutes a crime from a libertarian perspective?

Denis Chernomorets: " Can't society be the target of a crime?"Saind Official:" Denis, he can't. Society consists of individual people, if no one is harmed, then there can be no harm to "society".«

Mikhail Svetov on libertarianism in 5 minutes

All of the most important institutions of human society - language, law, money, and markets - have evolved spontaneously, without centralized leadership. / D. Bowes / One of the forms of influence on the state is the formation of parties. The libertarian, democratic, socialist parties all want one thing - less poverty, more prosperity. But they all have different ways of achieving this goal. For instance:

Marriage

Target: Everyone can get married regardless of gender, religion, nationality, skin color, etc. Implementation: Libertarians are against state registration of marriage, they are for a written or oral (oath) marriage contract.

Health care

Affordable and high-quality medical care for everyone. Libertarians are in favor of ensuring that everyone has excellent medical care, treatment, but they are against government interference in this process, for example, through mandatory contributions to health insurance. Let this money remain with people, and they themselves will choose a worthy doctor, clinic.

Physical freedom

Each person is free to dispose of his body at his own discretion. A person has the right to decide for himself what to eat, how to be treated, what medications to take, who to work with.

Court

Fair trial. Laws that impede a person's free choice (but which do not infringe on the rights of others) are unfair and must be abolished.

Environment

Everyone has the right to live in a pollution-free environment. State-protected enterprises are the most active pollutants environment and the most unpunished. How more land will be in the hands of people, the cleaner the air, water, earth will be.

Economy

Strong, stable, innovative economy. Libertarians believe that the only fair economic system Is free market capitalism. If there is no government interference in the market process through regulations, subsidies, then good products and the services that are produced and sold in the free market will flourish and the bad ones will fail. You can't sell Arbidol then).

Immigration

Every adequate, peaceful-minded foreigner can become a citizen of Russia. Any foreigner who is peaceful, striving for creation, respecting the culture of Russia, and who wants to become a citizen, should have the right to do so, no matter what country he is from, what language he speaks, or what religion he professes.

Army

Defense of Russia from enemies. Libertarians believe there is no reason to intervene in wars outside of Russia. The army must protect Russian citizens. In addition, the Army spends a very large percentage of our budget. Russia must stop policing in the world and not participate in long-term wars on the territory of foreign states.

Abortion

The decision to have an abortion is a matter for the family, not the state. The government does not have to decide which medical procedures we should choose. Abortion is a very personal issue and the government should not be involved in making this choice.

Civilian weapons

A law-abiding citizen has the right to defend himself, his family, and his property with a weapon. Libertarians support the right to keep and bear arms. Any obstacle on the part of the government to restrict this right in any way is unfair and must be abolished. The more restrictions there are, the better for the black market weapons and more weapons in the hands of criminals. A criminal will always be armed, and a law-abiding citizen is prohibited from carrying a weapon - and this is unfair.

Education

Improve education at all levels. A free market, as with any industry, will ensure a thriving education system. Good schools will do well, and bad schools will be replaced by better ones as a result of competition. Those. In a nutshell, libertarianism aims to ensure the absolute and inalienable freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech, opinion, assembly, the right to own property, equality before the law, and physical independence. Libertarians recognize the need state power, but in a limited or minimal amount. The government, according to libertarianism, is only needed to protect the rights of citizens and should only intervene where these rights and freedoms are threatened. Injustice is where an individual or their group restricts the freedom of another person by their activities.

Libertarians foster personal responsibility and philanthropy, and traditionally oppose corporatism. These values ​​underlie the concept of spontaneous order, that social order is not imposed by a central authority or under the leadership of government, but naturally arises in large communities of individuals working in concert.

How did libertarianism come about?

The ideological origins of libertarianism can be seen in the ancient world long before the word appeared. The Chinese thinker Lao Tsu wrote that "without law or coercion, people will live in harmony," and philosophers and poets of Greece expounded the concept of the supreme law of nature or order above the powers of the state and royalty. Libertarianism in the modern sense first appeared during the Age of Enlightenment. Philosophy shares much of its history with classical liberalism in the 18th century, as the concepts of free will have inspired a number of important French, Scottish, and American thinkers. There were three main philosophers then: John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. Often referred to as the "Father of Classical Liberalism," Locke is best known for his influential theories of social contract, personal independence, and private property. Property, as the fruit of human labor, he argued, is a right. Likewise, the role of government is to protect civil rights, not to impose rights on citizens. Meanwhile, Smith wrote against government interference in citizens' affairs. He was also a well-known critic and opponent of trade unions and corporations. Mill, with his utilitarianism, in his essay On Freedom, emphasized that the purpose of power is to preserve human freedom for pleasure and happiness. Other philosophers, such as the French Baron de Montesquieu, proposed the separation of state powers. These classic liberal ideas have had a huge impact on the thinking of American and French revolutionaries. In France, ideas were enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.

In the United States, America's Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the very purpose of government is to protect the "inalienable rights" of every citizen to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The anarchic notion of individualism can be traced in the works of such American writers as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Early 20th century modern brand American libertarianism, more often associated with free market conservatism, has been expounded by writers such as L. L. Mencken, Leonard Reed, and Ayn Rand. Following the federal initiatives and programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the New Deal, many of these theorists rejected the name "liberal", which came to mean socialist ideals, and began to look for another name. By the 1960s, Murray Rothbard was popularizing the term libertarianism which was invented by an anarcho-communist named Joseph Dejac in 1857 and is composed of the French "libertaire".

Left (libertarian socialism) and right libertarianism

In 1971, the Libertarian Party was formed in the United States, advocating a free capitalist market and fighting regulation on a range of socio-economic issues. Right-wing libertarianism interprets market economy as a spontaneous order according to Adam Smith. It is in this right movement that free market capitalism and the right to private property are supported. The powers of the centralized government are reduced and state ownership is abolished. Some advocate functions of the state such as the police, the army, and the justice system to protect private property, citizen interaction, and action against aggression. Right-wing libertarian ideas are spread by several think tanks, including the anarcho-capitalist Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute founded by Rothbard (the latter with the help of Charles Koch of Koch Industries). However, while the right-wing libertarian position found little political ground in the US, the philosophy remained more associated with left-wing anarchism in other parts of the world.

In the United States, writes Frank Fernandez in his book Cuban Anarchism, it was once extremely useful term The "libertarian" has been taken over by selfish people who are actually enemies of freedom in the full sense of the word.

American leftist theorist Noam Chomsky has consistently argued that libertarianism is in fact interchangeable with social anarchist or anti-statistical socialism. The term is used by the Libertarian Left Alliance and the Center for a Stateless Society. While both expressions tend to be culturally liberal in their support for drug legalization, privacy rights, and marriage equality, the main point of contention is economics and property. Libertarian socialists and anarchists promote direct democracy with a minimal state and prefer collectivized citizen-owned cooperatives. Their approach to production is supported by Adam Smith's theory of the cost of labor, also cited as Marxist in nature: the value of a product or service is determined by the social cost of producing it, hours, and human effort, not its cost to customers. For left libertarians capitalism is another hierarchical labor relationship in conflict with their emphasis on personal freedom. On the property side, some left-wing libertarians favor communes but move towards the political center, others support employment-based property rights. Left-wing libertarianism has discovered a recent resurgence in the rebellious hacker ethics and leaderless political movements of the early 2010s, fueled by the Internet that began after economic crisis 2008 and is fueled by enthusiasm for the future potential of digital technology. Globally, this has found form in the Pirate Parties, the Internet Party of New Zealand and the Five Star Movement in Italy, which are still politically active.

For most people, the idea that each person belongs exclusively to himself is not surprising. This statement seems natural and is usually not disputed. But do we really understand correctly what individual sovereignty is and what it gives us? What does it even mean to belong to yourself?

The concept of self-ownership was first described by English philosopher John Locke, whose ideas had a huge impact on the development of political philosophy. In Two Treatises on Government, he wrote that every person has ownership of their identity, including the right to choose who to become and what to do. Freedom, according to Locke, is not a state in which "everyone does what he wants" - it is the freedom of a person to dispose of his personality, actions and property, "not to be subjected to the despotic will of another, but to freely follow his own will."

Let's say you own something - say, a clothing, a car, a house, or a block of shares. Obviously, this is your property, which you can dispose of as you please - just as you dispose of yourself. Individual sovereignty means that only you can decide how you dispose of yourself and your property. Other people cannot use your property without your permission, or force you to do with it what you do not want.

Libertarianism can gather in itself both "right" and "left", both "white" and "red", both "liberals" and "conservatives", both "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" - just because libertarians believe that the state shouldn't do too much. People who agree on this idea obviously have fewer reasons to argue with each other about politics, less arguments about goals and even less about methods (any violent methods quickly get a low rating from a libertarian).

People who do not want or cannot part with the classification of left and right, libertarians are more likely to be classified as right. For example, the qualification "left libertarian" is found many times more often than "right libertarian". There is a simple explanation for this: one of the signs of the "left" is distrust of private property in general and of money in particular; mistrust is strong, up to proposals to completely destroy both of these institutions. But libertarians, firstly, build their entire argumentation around private property, therefore, for them any skeptical (including "left") attitude towards it is unacceptable; secondly, libertarians do not see material inequality as a form of political inequality - and this attitude towards money, in turn, is unacceptable for the "left".

The left-right dichotomy demonstrates a fair amount of stability. Polarization benefits many: the radicals are interested in remaining radical - this is part of their political identity. Their moderate opponents are also interested in the radicals remaining radicals - marginal and disunited. The senselessness and stability of this classification can be clearly seen in the example of the bipartisan system of the United States. There are two stable parties, although their ideologies (and even their names) are not stable over time. The most reflective part of the population understands that the choice between them is artificial.

The way it is. "Are Libertarians Left or Right?" - the question is not very meaningful. It is better not to answer such questions.

What is a state?

The state is a great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

Frederic Bastiat

Although the modern state has developed relatively recently, its existence and necessity are most often accepted by people as an indisputable given. Fortunately, this "given" can be fought.

As defined by Max Weber, the state is an organization that has a monopoly on legitimate physical violence. Most people will say that the state protects their interests, but in practice they will criticize both the ineffectiveness of the bureaucracy and corruption. officials, lamenting that power corrupts those who get it.

All of these claims are valid, and libertarians are the only ones who take them seriously and consider these problems recoverable and solvable at the system level.

Indeed, the state is ineffective, corrupt and repressive, although citizens expect it to defend their rights. All these facts are interconnected. The state is made up of people who also make mistakes. Although the cost of their mistakes is higher, the losses from these mistakes are borne by all citizens. This promotes corruption and attracts people to government activities who do not hesitate to use it for their personal gain. To defend their position, they will, of course, prefer not to defend the rights of others, but to carry out repression. The degree of atrocity with which all this happens depends on how well the system of checks and balances is built.

Libertarians believe that the role of the state in the life of society should be minimized, and they admit that its existence is not necessary at all.

In order for society to exist, we certainly need certain norms, but their sources do not have to be the state at all. It is quite possible to use private norms, which in the process of competition will develop much more efficiently than norms that are established centrally.

Pavel Usanov. Wealth Science

The existence of the state is supported by taxation. Few people like the way the government spends the collected funds, but usually taxes are perceived as an inevitable "social contract". However, libertarians fundamentally oppose taxation, putting forward them as ethical (taxes are collected involuntarily, under the threat of violence, and in themselves are thus violence akin to robbery; no one can delegate the authority to collect taxes to the state, since no one has the authority to force collect money from other people) and market arguments (taxation brings profit, including to those who work poorly). A substitute for the modern tax system can serve as voluntary fees to pay for certain services provided by the state or entirely on a private basis.

Several myths about the market. The market will decide, or why the natural spontaneous order is better than the state

Among people who are not very interested in social studies, there are a huge number of myths about market economy, which the state successfully instills in school. The market is blamed for all the problems of humanity - from poverty to war. It is enough to evaluate these claims from the point of view of logic to be convinced of their falsity.

"Free market leads to wars"

Perhaps this is one of the most popular accusations. According to the myth, "evil capitalists" profit from wars, leading millions of people to certain death.

In fact, the opposite is true. War businessmen bring only losses: the population becomes poorer, the demand for many goods and services decreases, relations with trading partners abroad are severed and there are interruptions in the supply of resources. Private entrepreneurial initiative and personal freedom are the first to be hit by wartime, while state structures only grow.

Wars often start with trade restrictions. As Frédéric Bastiat aptly put it, if goods do not cross borders, armies will cross them. In a free market, it is unthinkable for governments to unleash wars: the trading countries have a mutual interest in maintaining open and friendly relations. But as soon as the state begins to pursue a protectionist policy (aimed at reducing the volume of trade through violence), it makes many enemies, the confrontation with which often turns into military conflicts.

Wars can only be beneficial to the ruling elite: the direct government and the oligarchy that has grown together with it, which arises precisely because of the actions of the state and profits both from the war and from post-war reconstruction. These people cash in on someone else's grief, they are the main beneficiaries of wars.

"Free market fosters the emergence of monopolies"

"... and a big and kind state is the only way to solve this problem." The people who assert this have hardly ever thought about the essence of the state. But it embodies the main monopoly, the most stable of those that only exist - the monopoly of violence.

That is why it is impossible to solve the problem of the formation of monopolies with the help of the state. Moreover, the government, using its powers, regularly gives privileges to certain producers (good ground for corruption). For example, a patent is a government monopoly on the production of a certain type of goods. Because of this, fair competition comes to an end for a long time, and prices, accordingly, rise.

In a developed free market, only a temporary monopoly can emerge - and only in a newly formed industry. Such a monopoly is no less precarious than any other player in the market: as soon as it inflates prices, a huge number of competitors will appear. Some monopolies, however, are natural: for example, it is not possible to build more than one road everywhere, and not everyone has enough frequencies for radio broadcasting. Such monopolies will exist in both the free and non-free markets.

"The poor get poorer and the rich get richer"

It is enough to look at the statistics (Our world in data, in English) to understand everything:

In 1981, 44% of people worldwide were living below the poverty line. In 2013 - 10.7%.

In 1990, 2 billion people lived in absolute poverty. In 2015 - 705 million. On average, 137,000 people were lifted out of poverty every day.

In 1981, only 9% of the population in poor countries earned more than $ 10 a day (at the 2011 exchange rate). In 2013 - 23%.

Absolutely everyone gets richer in the free market; it is beneficial not only for entrepreneurs and the rich, but also for the broad masses. We do not consider the conditions in which these changes took place as a "free market", but we agree that it is generally much freer than in the past. The point is that many people are unaware that poverty is falling, while considering the current market "too free" and blaming it for the growth of poverty.

"The free market promotes the direct dictatorship of entrepreneurs (oppression or 'exploitation' of employees)"

The arguments of the proponents of this statement suggest or prove that the employer is a priori in a better position than the employee. However, this is confirmed only by human words, everyday “ public opinion”, But not confirmed by human actions. Workers rarely become employers, even with the allowance for the fact that "starting a business is expensive": wealthy employees also rarely become entrepreneurs. Finally, by putting themselves in the shoes of an entrepreneur, many people are likely to agree that being an entrepreneur is not easy. The entrepreneur bears his own risks, including those that do not exist for the employee.

"The free market promotes an indirect dictatorship of entrepreneurs (oligarchy or corruption)"

An argument like "whoever has money will have power." It should be noted that both oligarchy and corruption are already a reality, regardless of libertarianism. At the same time, they are inherent in strong states and are terrible precisely for this. Oligarchy allows the use of non-market coercive mechanisms that exist exclusively thanks to the state. Corruption exists due to the fact that the bribe-taker official is in a privileged position in front of the briber-giver and can dictate conditions to him, and not vice versa. Both the reasons and the negative consequences of oligarchy and corruption are the excessive powers of the state and insufficient separation of powers (excessive centralization of power). Libertarianism opposes both of these practices and is always on the victim's side against the aggressor, no matter how much money the aggressor has and whether he received it honestly or dishonestly.

"Radical market reforms will lead to low wages for everyone."

Salaried workers can (and do) bargain for wages now. There is no reason to believe that they will stop bargaining for wages after market (including libertarian) reforms. On the contrary, building up the powers of the state is more likely to contribute to restricting the employee's ability to bargain. For example, government-controlled jobs are more likely to be paid less flexibly. There is also no reason to believe that the wages fixed by the state will be "high". Broad government powers promote high money emission (both through the creation of cash and through the issuance of unsecured loans), which leads to a decrease in the purchasing power of money. Many people understand this without even studying economic theory. Even common sense says: it is impossible to defeat poverty by setting an exorbitant minimum wage across the country. At the same time, it seems to the same people: declare the minimum wages a little higher than they are now, and you can make people a little richer. There is no qualitative difference between the two proposals, there is only a quantitative one. The first will make people poorer instantly and explicitly, the second - slowly and imperceptibly. It should not be forgotten that libertarians are in favor of stricter control over government spending and strongly against bailouts, which will increase the purchasing power and value of all "hard money", including salaries. Finally, reducing the tax burden will also make everyone richer.

Libertarianism and religion

World religions require their followers not to kill or steal. This is written in their sacred texts, and to this the priests call their flock. What has been said is enough to keep libertarianism open to religious people. The principle of self-ownership means that no one has the right to prohibit other people from practicing religion nonviolently, and even more so - to prohibit them from believing. Libertarian societies, where only individual religions are practiced, can be formed within contractual jurisdictions. Therefore, believers have many reasons to support the libertarian platform.

There are people who say about themselves: I am a libertarian and at the same time a Christian / Muslim / Buddhist. There is public organizations which can be described as "libertarian Muslim" and "libertarian Christian". This is not the most popular area of ​​libertarian and near-libertarian social activity, but nevertheless it exists.

History shows that conflicts between adherents of different religions (and especially religious wars) come to naught as soon as the idea becomes popular that religion is a private matter of citizens, and not part of the sphere of responsibility of the state. This is an example of how an explicitly libertarian solution has shown excellent results in practice.

Most libertarians appear to be atheists or agnostics, which does not prevent them from consistently condemning violence and cooperating with people of different views to achieve common political goals that flow from this fundamental principle.

Ethics and libertarianism

Within the framework of ethics, people try to find an answer to the question of how to act in various situations, how to separate the good from the bad. One can immediately say that libertarianism does not seek to find a universal and comprehensive answer to this question. Libertarian ethics boil down to the question of when the use of force is justified. The answer found can be briefly formulated as follows: "libertarianism is always on the side of the victim against the aggressor."

There are two main principles in libertarianism: the principle of self-ownership and the principle of non-aggression. Any action is judged based on adherence to these principles. If they are observed, everything is more or less in order; if not, then it is bad (immoral, unethical, and so on). It is important that actions are judged according to their compliance with certain principles, and not according to how we perceive their consequences. A good end cannot justify a bad means.

Let's take an extreme example. Imagine a person who needs to earn a living. If he is not hired anywhere, he could face death by starvation. Would it be good if the state obliges some employer to arrange this person for a job?

According to libertarian ethics, such employment is clearly a bad act. Even though the alternative threatens the person with death by starvation.

This position may seem terrible, and libertarians - some bloodthirsty "social Darwinists". But imagine yourself as a private employer who is obliged to employ an employee. Not only was the "good deed" done at someone else's expense — the state decided for you whom you should hire; now you will have to pay an unwanted employee a salary from your budget, and the laurels of a benefactor will more likely go to the state than to a person who had to be forced to do a good deed. But, in addition, this "good deed" was committed by force: you were not obliged to provide jobs to anyone, but your freedom of choice in this matter was simply canceled. A compulsory good deed violated the freedom of the one who was forced to do this good deed - and therefore it is regarded in libertarianism as a bad deed.

What then remains to be done by the unemployed from our example? It should not be concluded that libertarianism approves of the death of the weaker or the refusal to help those in need. This is not true. Libertarianism does not prohibit aid, much less encourage any particular form of selfishness. It's just that within the framework of libertarian ethics, the assessment of "good" or "bad" is given on the basis of adhering to the above principles of self-ownership and non-aggression - and this is what it is limited to.

A person can be helped without coercion. Other people may well decide to help someone in need - either with a piece of bread, or with the same job placement. In a free society, charity is much more developed than in an unfree society - people know what it means to get into difficult situation, and do not expect help from the state to all the poor and the poor, but take matters into their own hands.

Even if those around them decide otherwise and refuse to help the needy, they will have the inherent freedom of choice to make this or that decision. Would such a refusal be condemned by the libertarian society? It is quite possible, but this question is already beyond the scope of libertarian teaching. We affirm only that good deeds are not done by force, and that no good purpose can justify aggression, coercion, encroachment on other people's freedom and property. Unlike others, we draw from this unambiguous, consistent and predictable political conclusions: what the state can do and what not, and which laws are fair and which are not.

In the end, if the surrounding community of a person is decidedly not satisfied, he will be free to join another community (or organize his own) and live by different rules. Libertarianism claims that you are free to voluntarily associate with your like-minded people, build the society you want, and negotiate ethical standards that are closer to you. Libertarians oppose state discrimination, but welcome private.

Controversial issues in libertarianism

Most of the issues and problems in libertarianism can be considered and given an unambiguous assessment within the framework of and. However, in real life situations arise in which it is difficult to be guided only by them. Let's consider just a few of them:

Limited state dispute

At the heart of this dispute is the thesis that in some cases the state can be useful, but must exist within a limited framework only to maintain order and protect against external aggression. believe that such a state will still exist on the principles of aggressive violence and coercion and will always strive to expand its powers.

The origin of rights in the theory of law

Viewpoints on the origin of rights can be divided into two categories:

Rights are objective, independent of laws and human conventions ("natural law").

All other points of view and approaches ("contract law", " legal right" or something else).

Among libertarians, there are both supporters of the theory of natural inalienable law, and supporters of other approaches.

Subjectivity of the child

Libertarians agree with the conventional wisdom that a person has no legal subjectivity from birth. But while some libertarians believe that in order for a young person to acquire subjectivity, he only needs to declare it, the other part - that this should be preceded by something more substantial - for example, gaining material independence from parents.

The admissibility of libertarian party activity

Not all libertarians agree that libertarian parties should exist at all. The most famous documented dispute on this topic took place between Murray Rothbard and Samuel Edward Konkin III. Libertarians who oppose the participation of libertarians in ordinary political life today do not interfere with libertarian supporters of such participation. Some join libertarian parties, some don't.

The Position of Libertarians on the Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart is a popular political spectrum diagram proposed by American libertarian David Nolan in 1969. In an effort to avoid the traditional but useless, Nolan proposed to classify political views according to two main criteria - according to the levels of personal and economic freedom. As a result, a plane arises where on one axis the attitude of a person to economic freedom (from the left to the right, in a purely economic sense) is laid, and on the other - to personal freedom (from authoritarianism to libertarianism).

The resulting diagram can be divided into sectors corresponding to different political philosophies. For example, conservatives are more often in favor of greater economic freedom, but also for state intervention in the sphere of personal freedom (for example, punishment for drug use). do not agree to such interference, but they welcome state control in the field of economics (for example, the minimum wage or the state pension system).

Libertarians advocate the maximum level of personal and economic freedom, considering it harmful and wrong to government interference in the activities of people. This sector on the Nolan diagram includes, in particular, the position of the Libertarian Party of Russia.