Genuine Libertarians - Neither Left nor Right

Sunny on Alex Massie:

I say Alex Massie is a left-libertarian. He’s just giving the right an undue good name by aligning himself with them.

Now, that's a phrase I'm hearing being used more and more - "left-libertarian". I suppose on one level it represents a step forward for the Libertarian cause: the left are starting to realise that libertarianism has something to offer. But the undertone is less positive - it represents the left trying to co-opt Libertarians of which they approve, and make them part of their crude and out-dated vision of political discourse. The identification of "left-libertarian" comfortably places anyone branded with that tag on the left side of the political spectrum, and as a result almost immediately negates the radical alternative offered by libertarianism.

That's not to say that I like the concept of a right-wing libertarian anymore than I do the idea of a left-libertarian. Right-wing libertarians are ultimately not libertarian at all. They tend to talk a good game on economic freedom, but end up being social conservatives or at the very least apologists for social conservatives. And it is amazing how many right-wing Libertarians end up becoming Republicans in the US or Conservatives in the UK - and in doing so miss the point that neither of those political movements is actually libertarian in any meaningful way or ever will be.

Put simply, a true Libertarian will simultaneously be right-wing and left-wing. I'm a libertarian, and I hold extremely left-wing views on immigration, LGBT issues, drug legalisation and in a number of other areas. But when it comes to economics, I'm right-wing - I believe in the free market, in lower taxes, and that nationalisation is, in the vast majority of cases, a bad idea. As a result, I automatically reject the terms "left" and "right" when someone tries to apply them to me.

This isn't a case of political schizophrenia - that libertarians like myself cannot make up our minds between the two sides of the political spectrum. Because there is a theme running through my beliefs - the theme of freedom. I take the left-wing views that say that the state should not tell me how to live socially, and I take the right-wing views that say that the state should not tell me how live economically (or, to put it another way, the state should not tell me how to spend my money). Fundamentally, I cannot be left-wing or right-wing since they both advocate intensive control of the lives of citizens, albeit in different ways.

Indeed, the concept of the difference between left and right is actually all smoke and mirrors - there is remarkably little difference actually there. Those on the left and the right vie for control of the state and argue over the best way to run that state. Yet they seldom, if ever, challenge the fundamental assumption underpinning both of their beliefs - that the state, run in the correct way, is a good thing. Genuine libertarians understand that the state is a human construct, and therefore must always be subordinate to its people rather than becoming more important than its creators. Genuine libertarians also understand that the state, as a human construct, reflects many of the flaws of its creators. By definition, it cannot be neutral and it cannot be without flaws. As such, libertarians realise that the state is not automatically benign in its dealings with its people, and history is littered with examples of where states have become actively malign.

I honestly believe that the radical alternative to the bloated, ineffectual political status quo is being offered by Libertarians. As such, I believe it is important for libertarians to reject those tags that would make them part of the current status quo. Genuine libertarians are neither right-wing or left-wing; their fundamental belief should be in rescuing the concept of liberty from an ever-expanding and increasingly controlling state. The fundamental political question of our time isn't whether you're left or right. It is whether you favour state control or freedom.

Monbiot On The "Free" Market

George Monbiot bloviating on some dickhead who used to run Northern Rock:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column for the Guardian exploring the contrast between Matt Ridley's assertions in his new book The Rational Optimist and his own experience. In the book, Ridley attacks the "parasitic bureaucracy", which stifles free enterprise and excoriates governments for, among other sins, bailing out big corporations. If only the market is left to its own devices, he insists, and not stymied by regulations, the outcome will be wonderful for everybody.

What Ridley glosses over is that before he wrote this book he had an opportunity to put his theories into practice. As chairman of Northern Rock, he was responsible, according to parliament's Treasury select committee, for a "high-risk, reckless business strategy". Northern Rock was able to pursue this strategy as a result of a "substantial failure of regulation" by the state. The wonderful outcome of this experiment was the first run on a British bank since 1878, and a £27bn government bail-out.

It seems curious to me to be making a case against the free market by discussing a market that was not free. But that is precisely what Monbiot is trying to do. He's arguing that because the market was free, Northern Rock was able to follow a dumb-as-fuck business strategy and ended up having to be bailed out by the government. The problem with this "logic" is given away by those final five words: "bailed out by the government". Fundamentally, if the government is intervening in failing companies, then the market is not free.

Both now and when Northern Rock went tits up, we had a mixed economy. The government regulates and regularly intervenes in that economy - even in the banking sector. Had the market actually been left to its own devices, then Northern Rock would have gone under and the government could have saved billions. Furthermore, other businesses would have seen the result of pursuing a dumb-as-fuck business strategy, and might well have decided to change their business plans accordingly.

That's what would happen in a free market - business could take risks, but if those risks don't pay off, then the business itself has to take responsibility for that.

Now, I can certainly understand a certain indignation here: a man who used to run a business that ended costing the taxpayer billions writing a book on best business practice might be a little hard to digest. But the reason why that business cost us billions is because the government decided to bail that bank out. Gordon Brown is just as responsible for the Northern Rock bailout as Matt Ridley. He made the choice to spend that money; not Ridley, and certainly not an unregulated market.

By all means make your case against the free market - there's certainly one to be made. But if you want it to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, you need to discuss the free market. Not a mixed economy.

Quote of the Day

"In my view, sociology today has still insufficiently noted the fact that the development of man is bound up with competition, that is, with the most important element of the liberal economy."

Max Horkheimer, (1895-1973)