Libertarianism: Equality or Just a Fantasy?
The subject of libertarianism is an interesting one, as it has more influence and it can affect people in more ways the one may expect. It’s ever growing in the United States. It has managed to develop one of the biggest third parties in American politics. Their ideology is unique as they feel the best government is the one that does little to no governing in all aspects. I’m curious to how plausible this idea really is, as there haven’t really been any first world countries without some form of government involvement. In fact one could argue the United States is the closest government to be a libertarian one. I think if one was implanted we would notice low-income citizens suffering greatly.
A libertarian government can be compared to a communist as in both the citizens are said to be equal in someway. Everyone is supposed to be in the exact same position in a communist government and they can’t for the most part move up or down on the social ladder. Everyone is said to have equal opportunity in a libertarian one, but the government doesn’t give them anything. The main difference in these equalities is that in a libertarian government people can have absolutely nothing, and will no help from the government, because it was equal opputinuity not equal everything. A libertarian government leaves too much up in the air and to many people at risk.
In P.H. Bering’s book “Libertarianism the Economy of Freedom” he explains what libertarianism is. At the end of the book he gives several potential counter arguments to libertarianism. The very first one is “how about those who cannot fend for themselves?” (Bering 105) The book answers this question with “that there are not nearly as many of them as the ruling priesthood of social workers want us to believe.” (Bering 105) This stance goes very well with the idea of little to no government, as the government now helps out people, for reasons such as not having a job, not making enough to support themselves and their families and there are many other reasons. It should be noted that often people on welfare are not only fending for themselves, but also their children. It was found in Florida that ninety percent of those on welfare where single mothers, with between one and three children. (Welfare: fact vs. fiction) I’m confident this could be used as model for the rest of the United States. Right now those who grow up poor have a harder time gaining the opportunities those who grow up rich get, a libertarian government is just going to make it even harder as the poor will be even poorer then they are now.
(Projected Mean-Tested Welfare Spending. Heritage)
While it would be nice to be able to use this money for other purposes, the people who currently receive this money would be in a worse position as they don’t have the means necessary to take advantage of the opportunity that comes with a libertarian government.
Libertarians believe that a government with less authority is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They claim their form of government gives people rights and they are “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. (Michan 121) But, really a libertarian government could deprive some people of both life and the pursuit of happiness. Today are definition of the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn’t much different then what they were in the eighteenth century. Life is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary as “the characteristic, state or condition of a living organism.”(The American Heritage College Dictionary). With taking away some form of government there is risk of taking someone’s life, of course there is an opportunity for them to gain the means necessary to live, but for some people this just isn’t possible. Even if the number of people who rely on the government is small like Bering writes, it’s still some people, who have the right to life. The word pursuit is defined as “the act or an instance of chasing or pursuing” (The American Heritage College Dictionary) and the word happiness or happy is defined as “enjoying showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction or joy”. (The American Heritage College Dictionary) With these definitions I believe it’s reasonable to assume “the pursuit of happiness” means something along the long the lines of having the right to seek what makes them content. If the only way a citizen can get this by depending on the government, they should be given essentials that will allow them to be content.
(John Locke)
It seems as though the Libertarians try to come off as appealing by trying to say what they want is what the Founding Fathers wanted. The Founding Fathers used “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” a condensed version of John Locke’s original quote, in the Declaration of Independence.
There needs to be some form of regulation as things get neglected or they get overused because of one’s own self interest. David Boaz explains this well as he puts it that” when resources- such as a common grazing are, forest, or lake- are “owned” by everyone, they are effectively owned by no one. No one has an incentive to maintain the value of the asset or use it on a sustainable basis”. (Boaz 249) What this means is that when everyone has equal excess to something there will be no caring for its well being, they will want use the asset up for themselves quickly because otherwise others will use it.(Boaz 249) Boaz is actually arguing in favor of Libertarianism. What David Boaz is arguing in the quote is that instead of sharing something, one person should own it and everyone else who wishes to use it should pay for it. So instead of something being regulated by the government, the owner is regulating it and everyone else is at the mercy of the owner, at least in terms of how much they have to pay for whatever is in question. This is why it’s important for governments to have authority as the government isn’t on one groups’ side. The success of government regulation can be seen with illegality of monopolies. People can get a fair price because the government doesn’t allow one person or group to control an entire market. With monopolies prices go up and the poor are the first to struggle and suffer. So, those who have trouble taking care of themselves depend on the government indirectly as the government indirectly forces companies to keep prices down. It can be assumed with no government monopolies with form quickly and prices would go up.
While Libertarians drive home the fact that they are for people and they want equal opportunities for everyone, simple statistics show that it wasn’t meant to be. Americans really don’t want all of what the Libertarians want to give them. You really just have to look at the success of the Libertarian party here in the United States. The 111th United States currently has five hundred and thirty five voting members, two of these are independents and the rest are either Republican or Democrats. This ideology can’t even gain momentum in one state or one congressional district. While these are just statistics there are plenty of people voicing their fear of no government control. In an article from LexisNexis by Sara Terry’s title “Libertarians: the third third party”. Its explained how “Americans say they want less government in their lives, the public is still not prepared to sweep away the majority of federal programs.” ( Terry par 4) From this quote you can see people are aware of their dependence on the government. Also this quote goes against what Bering claims about how not many people are dependent on the government.
2008 Election Results for 3rd Party and Independent Candidates
2008 Election Results for 3rd Party and Independent Candidates
Reported % of popular votes | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
Reported # of popular votes | 181,818 | 511,324 | 152,811 | 698,798 |
(2008 Election Results for Third Party)
These were the four most popular candidates after Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The Libertarian candidate came in fourth overall. While this may seem like an excuse to say that the Libertarians are doing well, it can be debated. Just over a half a million people supported the Libertarian candidate, the Libertarian party is trying to be appealing to everyone, and are not fighting for one cause like a typical third party. This helps show people do want some form of government regulation.
The Libertarian may have some good ideas, but it seems as most of those are already taken place within the United States government and law. It can come off as appealing as they do bring up good points that the Founding Fathers would advocate, but they are often taken out of context. If the Libertarian Party wants to help everyone they should listen to what the majority wants and that is some form of government regulation. There is just too much in question when it comes to a libertarian form of government and too much needs to happen for all of the pieces to come together. American citizens’ well being shouldn’t be put a risk for a new type of government.
Works Cited
2008 Election Results for 3rd Party. ProCon. Web. 30 Nov. 2010
American Hertiage College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. Print.
John Locke. Quillp. Web. 30 Nov. 2010
Boaz, David. Libertarianism A Primer. New York : The Free Press, 1997. Print.
Bering, P.H. Libertarianism The Economy of Freedom. Berne: Peter Lang, 1995. Print.
John Locke. Quillp. Web. 30 Nov. 2010
Machan, Tibor R. Libertarianism Defended. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006. Print.
Projected Mean-Tested Welfare Spending. Heritage. Web. 30 Nov. 2010
Terry, Sara “ Libratarians: the third third party” 3 July. 2000. LexisNexis. Web 30 Nov 2010
“Welfare: fact vs. fiction” 10 Nov. 1995. LexisNexis. Web 7 Dec 2010
