Answering the Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer

The folks over at Salon are under the impression that they have posed a question that "libertarians just can't answer."  The question:

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

First of all - and any libertarian can tell you - libertarianism is the antithesis of the centralized organization of society that is championed by communists and democratic socialists.  Libertarians certainly do not claim "that they understand how best to organize society."  Quite simply, libertarian philosophy rests on a single principle: the use of force is immoral and should only be resorted to in cases of self defense.  Libertarians champion individual liberty.

Moving on to the meat of the question - namely, "why are there no libertarian countries?" - the answer is anything but illusive.  Hello people at Salon, ever heard of Hong Kong?  While Hong Kong is technically part of China, it's politically independent of the mainland.  Allow me to quote from the Hong Kong Wiki page:

Hong Kong is one of the world's leading international financial centers.

Hong Kong has a major capitalist service economy characterized by low taxation and free trade.

The Hong Kong dollar is the eighth most traded currency in the world.

Hong Kong has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

The dense space led to a highly developed transportation network with public transport traveling rate exceeding 90 percent, the highest in the world.

Hong Kong's economic freedom, financial and economic competitiveness, quality of life, corruption perception, Human Development Index, etc., are all ranked highly internationally.

Hong Kong had the longest life expectancy of any region in the world in 2012.

Hong Kong also has the highest average IQ score in 81 countries around the world.

So, don't take us poor, little libertarians word for it, increasing freedom increases prosperity, not the other way around.  Hong Kong is very libertarian and speaks for itself.

Further, a blogger over at Personal Libertarianism made a very good point - "libertarianism is not all or nothing."  Quoting that article:

Libertarianism is not all or nothing. In general, freedom is good, more freedom is better. It is not necessary to have a pure Libertarian system to experience the benefits of freedom. Libertarian theory can be taken to the extreme...if you want...but it can also be taken is small pieces if that is all your society can handle. No need for a violent revolution. Just the steady drip, drip, drip of ideals and practical compromise. Then, one day, we may all be free. Perfectly free.

This hints at one of the major contradictions that exists at the heart of democratic socialism - or what one may call neo-liberalism.  That contradiction: neo-liberals claim to be for freedom but wish to use government force to mandate anyone that disagrees with them to submit to their rule.  Don't subscribe to the arguments for state run healthcare?  Too bad, we'll use the taxing arm of the government to punish your lack of cooperation.  Don't believe that welfare assistance leads to the championed benefits?  Too bad, we'll take a cut of your paycheck and give to whom we wish.  Don't agree with abortion?  Too bad, we're sending some of your money to Planned Parenthood (For the record, I'm pro-choice through the first trimester).

One major difference where libertarianism stands alone among political philosophies, is the realization that economic and social freedom cannot be separated.  Libertarians would never use the force of government to rob their fellow countrymen in order to implement their pet projects.  As stated previously, force should be reserved for purposes of defense.  If a libertarian had strong feelings about increasing healthcare coverage, he or she would seek a free market solution.  If a libertarian wanted to help the poor, he or she would donate to a trusted charity.  If a libertarian wanted to fund abortion, he or she would do so without forcing others to comply using the barrel of a government gun.

Neo-liberals are good on some issues - social issues such as marijuana legalization (decriminalization), anti-war (some anyway), gay marriage, anti-corporatism/fascism (again some), etc.  If neo-liberals would only believe in economic freedom, they would be very close to being libertarians.  Alas, however, just as all dictators do, neo-liberals find joy in using government guns to dominate those people that disagree.  To illustrate, how many do you suppose were internally (and some vocally) elated when they heard that the IRS had been targeting political opponents of the current administration?

At least the neo-liberals are for some freedom - for some libertarianism.  The more freedom the better.

The United States was once very close to a libertarian society.  In the early 1900's, government sustained itself on under 5% of the GDP; the people enjoyed a large degree of economic freedom.  As a result, the greatest amount of wealth the world has ever known was amassed.  Immigrants from all over the world flocked to the U.S. for an opportunity at the American Dream (a term which has been redefined over the years to lower its standards).  Then, in 1913, a central bank was established - a vital element of any centrally planned society.  Since that time, the dollar has lost over 95% of its value, and all the wealth has been squandered - government debt is over 100% of GDP.  Democratic socialism has brought the once vibrant U.S. to its knees.

A question that the neo-liberals need to contemplate is, why do nations such as Greece, Spain, the U.S., etc. continue to find themselves bankrupt?  And if they wish to blame the bankers, they must realize that socialism cannot operate without a central banking cartel.

I'll conclude with a quote from Frederic Bastiat:

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." 

Good day.



Follow @DerrelWalters