Well, that sounds nice – and I’m not being sarcastic, it
does sound nice – so nice, in fact that a great many people use this word
Libertarian to describe themselves. I once flirted with the notion too, being a
person who prefers as little interference in my life by others as is
functionally possible. I've long thought we should be responsible for ourselves
first and for others according to conscience and capability.
But Wikipedia continues: “Different schools of
libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if
it does, to what extent.” Now this seems to me to be a central plank of the
whole thing. You either want a thing or you don’t – surely a political
philosophy should agree on something as fundamental as whether you have a state
or not? (A bit like the Labour Party having a clear stance on Union involvement,
for instance, but best we leave that there for now.) For my part, a small state
seems like a good thing.
It’s quite hard to organise something like national defence
and foreign policy on purely local grounds, but I can see healthcare, policing,
local services, food and water supplies and a criminal justice system operating
reasonably successfully under provincial, even private control, although the
borders will need some negotiation. So, all good then; a low tax, small state
administration and the devil take the hindmost. No welfare, no free rides, every
man for himself?
Not necessarily. The Wiki entry throws a spanner into the
works:
So it’s just a matter of exactly how small the state is,then? But wait…
“While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to
preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate
its complete elimination as a political system.”
So it’s just a matter of exactly how small the state is,then? But wait…
“While certain libertarian
currents are supportive of capitalism and private property, such as
in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private
ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common,
collective or cooperative ownership and management.”
See my confusion? That's no help at all! It turns out that libertarians can be anywhere
from Anarchist to Communist and support Capitalism or Socialism, or it would
appear, any system on the continuum. But even if the extent of state
responsibility could ever be agreed – and let’s face it, the last hundred years
of British politics has failed to establish that little detail – what happens
to a fiercely no-state libertarian who needs outside help? How does a
commune-based libertarian society deal with an individual who refuses to
contribute?
I’m sticking my neck on the block here but I don’t
believe Libertarianism is a political philosophy at all. From a conversation on
The Twitter last night, I guess the closest and most succinct elucidation I
received was “Freedom and Do No Harm”. Freedom is pretty much yours to have if
you live within your means and by doing no harm you should avoid unwanted
intrusion into your liberties. But as for adopting the mantle of "Libertarian", It
all seems a lot of fuss to go through just to say you’re a traditional British
citizen… except for that ridiculous mask.
