Classical liberals tend to focus mainly on legal issues, not so much on public policies and they still adhere to some statist notions about taxes, conscription, etc. Libertarians propose that human liberty may not be compromised for any reason at all.
QUESTION: What is the freest country in the world, in your opinion, and why? (I say it’s Canada) – Submitted by Peter in Orono, Ontario.
ANSWER: There are studies that answer this question, so you should not rely on my opinion. The Fraser Institute in Vancouver conducts one each year, if I am not mistaken.* Others do so as well. But in my opinion–and that is what this is, a provisional, by the seat of my pants assessment–the freest country is still the USA, but now more de facto rather than de jure. Still, even with the considerable loss of economic liberty during the last several decades, civil liberties have improved for members of several groups in the country. In comparison to the rest of the globe, and with the support of the better portion of the Bill of Rights, the USA is still most free. But other countries are catching up, both in law and in custom–on my recent visits to Asia and Europe (East and West), this was quite obvious.
*http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/display.aspx?id=13006
Question: Can you suggest some quality books that examine some of today’s political issues through a libertarian philosophy?
Answer: The best one I can think of is Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Lies the Government Told You, Myth, Power, and Deception in American History (Thomas Nelson, 2010). Also, Tom G. Palmer’s Realizing Freedom (Cato Institute, 2009). One may also gain some insights from my own Libertarianism Defended (Ashgate, 2007) and Neither Left nor Right (Hoover Institution Press, 2006).
By Tibor Machan,
Chapman University business ethics professor
Question: Libertarians don’t want the government to impose any regulations regarding pollution, correct? If no regulations are in place, however, and companies are allowed to pollute at will, won’t these pollutants eventually end up harming others, therefore warranting regulation? Aren’t there many places where environmental regulations are needed to protect people from harm?
Answer: Libertarians hold that the law must require all enterprises to cover their own cost of production which includes cleaning up their waste. The challenge is to identify the borders between these enterprises and make sure no dumping–imposing unwanted cost on others–occurs. If this is not technically possible, some regulations may have to be introduced that prevent businesses from misusing public spheres such as rivers, oceans, lakes, the air mass, etc. But all this should be aimed ultimately at removing regulations and replacing them with adjudication. (See, in this regard, J. C. Smith, “The Processes of Adjudication and Regulation, A Comparison,” in Johnson & Machan, eds., Rights and Regulation [SF: Pacific Institute, 1983], pp. 71-98.)
Question:
The emergence of the Tea Party this election cycle has galvanized a large number of Americans who are unhappy with a large, overreaching government. Can libertarians get on board with a majority of the Tea Party’s beliefs regarding government and policy? Are there any stances that the Tea Party takes that are deal breakers for Libertarians?
Answer:
My involvement in Tea Party matters is virtually nil. I follow the movement’s doings by reading both pro and con comments on its candidates and leaders, as well as listening to what some of the active members say in public forums. (Let me tell you the snooty Left is scared stiff of the Tea Party and rolling out its heavy guns to demean it, with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin serving as convenient targets whose lack of academic erudition is held against them in massive articles in prominent magazines like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books!)
As far as I can determine, the Tea Party is a kind of Right Wing populist assembly of people who have disparate ideas and objectives but are united in being disgusted with the leadership in Washington. There is among them room for nearly anyone who shows a positive attitude about main street America. Social conservatives, especially, seem to be welcome, what with pretty heavy moralizing as their central pitch; free market champions, too, tend to be accepted but not if they are also committed civil libertarians who might stand up for illegal immigrants and oppose the vicious War and Drugs; certainly members of the religious Right are not only welcome but often take leadership roles; and there are others, including those loyal to the American Founders and their central documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. (Sometimes they express themselves in questionable terms, such as swearing loyalty to the U.S. Constitution; but that document is now so watered down, so far from the principles stated in the Declaration, that it scarcely says anything about what the country’s political system and public policies ought to be all about.)
I am no spin doctor and do not have my finger on the pulse of the electorate, although I do try to keep abreast. It occurs to me that if the Tea Party is to have a solid chance at influencing American politics and public policy it will have to pare down its message to certain fundamentals and express this publicly in palatable ways.
The one principle that is truly representative of America as the Founders conceived of it is limited government, limited by the principle of individual liberty. Perhaps turning to this message with a clear emphasis on not trying to impose anything else on the country could be successful. If a Tea Party candidate or leader is pressed for views on matters other than the proper scope of government, the answer should be: “No comment on that since it isn’t a part of politics proper, not in a free country!” Yes, it is judicious, prudent to simply refuse to get caught up in all the issues that people may bring to the political table by teaching the lesson that they really aren’t political, even if they are on the minds of millions of people.
Tea Party members, leaders, candidates and the like may well succeed by adhering to this strategy of not allowing their detractors to involve them in everything. They could point out that this country isn’t supposed to be a totalitarian system in which politics takes over everything, addresses all issues on the minds of the citizenry. No, one need not have an opinion on creationism, intelligent design, child reading, drug use, and yes, even abortion. Let most of these topics be part of our social discourse, not our political thinking. That way the central Tea Party theme of reigning in the scope of government is kept in focus and the pluralism of the movement can also continue to flourish but within its proper domain, namely, the variety of social positions the huge tent of those who love liberty makes possible.
Yes, this way of going about things might link the Tea Party too closely with its libertarian faction but that could be a political asset if intelligently put (during interviews, press conferences, etc.). Do not permit the detractors to draw Tea Party people into discussions about matters that are not the proper concern of politics and public affairs. Therein might lie a way to victory, especially now that suspicion with governmental meddling is rife throughout the citizenry.
And this attitude can easily be linked to the central, crucial tenets of the American political tradition, the founding documents and the thinking of the Founders. That they may not all be entirely palatable in our age will not matter if discussions and proposals are kept to essentials. What is exceptional about America is its limited government tradition and moving away from this is wrong, inefficient, and, yes, un-American.
Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise
at the Argyros School of Chapman University.
http://tibikem.spaces.live.com/blog/
Question: There was recently a survey conducted by the Orange County Register asking candidates 5-8 questions, seeking to reveal their governance philosophy. How would a strict libertarian answer these questions?
1) What is the role of government?
A: As so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, it is to secure the rights of the citizenry, those rights they have as human beings (to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc., etc.).
2) Do you support the use of eminent domain? If so, in what circumstances and why? Do you support enterprise zones?
A: No principled libertarian can and would want to.
Question:
Does libertarian philosophy support the idea of term limits for elected officials? – Submitted by Trevor in Long Beach
Answer:
Not strictly speaking because libertarianism doesn’t discriminate in favor of newcomers or against veterans in the political process. But since Senators and Representatives and the rest of politicians across the country usually belong to a body which is like a club the members of which may make rules for themselves, if they decide to have as one of their (club) rules that no one may serve more than one or two or three terms, that is something they are free to do and so then no one would be discriminated against.
Question:
Should the US alter the 14th Amendment in order to put an end to birthright citizenship? Submitted by Will in Long Beach, CA
Answer:
I suppose what this asks if whether the 14th Amendment should be reconfigured, even repealed. It is a technical issue, part of political science, and if there is no evidence of the abuse of the 14th–which in this respect is best thought of as a security measure that imposes no burdens on any innocent people–there is probably no reason to change or repeal it. Would a libertarian country have such a measure in place? If there were evidence to show that without such a measure immigrants would enter and impose unassumed costs on the citizenry, yes. Otherwise no. (This is not a matter of political philosophy but of public policy.)
Do Libertarians believe in the Work at Will State? Ok, before you answer let me clarify. I know Libertarians want less government interference which I agree with but what about if firings that would violate our Constitutional rights.
That I don’t agree with.
Question submitted by Williams in Loveland, CO
Answer:
Constitutions are not sacrosanct. They can be flawed. If one wants to discontinue an employment relationship with someone, that is one’s basic right. Employment at will is just. (For Libertarians any talk of a work at will state is objectionable–why bring in the state unless you support coercion of employees and employers?)
Where do libertarians stand on the issue of “Corporate Personhood”, the idea that corporations are “artificial persons” under the law, granted the same citizenship rights that newly freed slaves were given in the 14th amendment? How is it that corporations have ‘Bill of Rights’ protections, like right of due process, freedom from unwarrented search and seizure, and freedom of the press and speech, when these rights were intended for individual persons? -Question submitted by Pattie in Yuma, AZ
Answer:
The best answer to this question can be found in Robert Hessen’s In Defense of the Corporation (Hoover 1979) and Hessen, “A New Concept of Corporations, A Contractual and Private Property Model,” Hastings Law Journal 30 (1979), 1327-50. Very briefly and only suggestively, a corporation is an association among people whereby they invest for a common purpose, usually but not exclusively economic. Corporations are not unlike orchestras, teams, clubs, churches, universities, and other human associations organized for achieving some purpose shared by the members or supporters. The issue of their supposed “personhood” arises mostly in connection with how the government treats them for tax purposes and since libertarians are opposed to coercion and, thus, taxation, this issue is largely moot for them. (Taxation is a kind of extortion: you get to work or buy this product provided you pay us, powerful people, something. There are much better and more peaceful ways to pay for law and order. For more on this, see http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Funding_Government_Without_Taxation.shtml, where an idea of mine is sketched by Ed Younkins.)