Libertarianism

I have been reading “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute with the hope that I might understand what so-called Libertarians actually believe. I’ll confess they mostly sound like anarchists to me — that is, they seem to want no government whatsoever. So I was mightily surprised, only a couple pages into the book, to find Boaz quoting from John Locke.

“[T] he end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom: For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no Law, there is no Freedom: For Liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be, where there is no Law: But Freedom is not, as we are told, A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.”

Boaz asserts that freedom is natural and primary and that “it’s the exercise of power, not the exercise of freedom, that requires justification.” What Locke asserted and Boaz apparently agrees with is that freedom cannot exist without laws because laws are designed to protect us and expand our freedom to act and possess. This is essentially the traditional belief of political philosophers, starting with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that a “state of nature” leads always to a “state of war” in which people have little freedom because of greed and intrusion of others.

I agree with Boaz that the exercise of power needs to be justified, and this is why government by the people is essential. Laws should have a purpose that the people accept. Government — the maker and administrator of laws — should be representative of the people’s will. Libertarians, after all, should not despise government but should work to make government better — granting that “better” may mean “less.”

It seems to me that the basic problem in this discussion is the fact that every American faces at least three forms of government. I pay taxes to local, state, and Federal agencies. I live under local laws that prescribe social behaviors and property rights and limitations (e.g., zoning laws). I live under state laws that dictate rules of the road, entrance to state owned properties, etc. Federal laws rule over export and import of goods, inter-state commerce, and civil rights. Generally, we understand that this distribution of powers relates to local, state-wide, and national “interests.” Automobile safety standards are a national interest because automobiles are used everywhere. On the other hand, boating safety guidelines may reasonably be maintained by the states or localities in which boats are used. [An interesting exception to this reasoning is Lake Tahoe, which being bounded by two states is under the jurisdiction of the US Coast Guard.] There is always jealousy in a lower level of government against the next government higher, which seeks to intrude upon the smaller community’s interests. Am I a Claremonter first, a Californian second, and an American third? Or am I an American who happens to live in Claremont, California?

It is really the Federal government that sets the tone of what it is to be an American by defining American “interests” and guaranteeing our freedom to pursue those interests using appropriate laws. This is what gives me problems with the current Libertarian movement — namely, it seems wildly hostile toward the Federal government. Suppose that I am gay and married to a man whom I dearly love in California. Then, suppose that Libertarians have had their way and allowed individual states to define marriage as they wish and, in particular, to prohibit gay marriages. For me, there is no longer a sense of being American because my freedom of union has been restricted to California and some other states that allow gay marriage. Federal laws define national interests in the sense that they aim at making it possible to travel and live throughout the country and enjoy certain freedoms. Advocates of “states rights” want to create enclaves that suit local or state interests in spite of national concerns. The present chaos in gun regulations — and non-regulation — is a great example. Not every American can openly care a gun but, in Texas, you can openly carry your gun into a university classroom.

It seems to me that it is time for Libertarians to stop hating the Federal government blindly and start telling us which parts of being American they think are unfriendly to their pursuit of freedom.