I know I’ve discussed it before, but a brief exchange with notsaussure causes me to revisit just what I mean when I label myself a libertarian. Notsaussure states that he is not a libertarian but then goes on to describe himself thus:
…not because I’m a libertarian (I’m not) but because I hold to the view that we’re all of us happiest when left to get on with our lives as seems best to us and that government should only intervene when — as inevitably will happen — conflicts arise from us all of us pursuing our individual courses and we can’t amicably sort out our disputes between ourselves.
That is pretty much how I describe myself. As with any ideology, there are degrees. I am no more an “American Thatcherite on steroids” now than I was anything like councillor Kelly when I was a paid up member of the Labour party. Mind you as an aside, I’m not convinced many other members are quite as bad as that – someone who thinks Fidel Castro is a jolly good egg isn’t firing on all four.
Libertarians suffer the same repeated misrepresentation as do atheists. Christians frequently refer to non believers as sad or angry people without meaning or morality in their lives. That this is patent nonsense is beside the point; the myth continues. So, too, do the myths about those of us who value liberty. We do not foam at the mouth, we do not seek to reduce society to lawless anarchy where everyone grabs what they want and damn the consequences. Really, we don’t.
Even during my Labour days, I had libertarian tendencies. I resented unnecessary government interference in my daily life. As far back as 1981 when I was actively involved in rider training, the Thatcher government started poking about with motorcycle testing and licensing (and made a horrendous botch of it). I was aggrieved – not because they sought to improve road safety, but rather because they sought to be seen to be doing something and motorcyclists were a useful target. Creating awful legislation rather than doing nothing seems to be a hallmark of all governments. Certainly it appeared that way at the time and the botched legislation that followed simply served to confirm my beliefs. The Michael Howard proposal for smart identity cards in 1995 brought the libertarian in me to the fore. His pernicious* proposals are reprised in the Frankenstein’s monster of the Blair product. All of it designed to serve the apparatus of the state, not the electorate that the state is supposed to serve.
Like many libertarians, I want to see less government. Why do we need a government department for sport, the arts and culture? Yes, we need policing, judicial process, foreign policy and defence, for example. But the arts? There’s one department that can and should go and make an instant saving. Not that I’m expecting a tax rebate, though…
The state is necessary for those things we cannot manage individually and even libertarians are a part of the overall community and are content to accept that collective behaviour has its place; just not too much of it, please.
I consider myself a reasonable man. I believe firmly in the principle of law and order. I believe in a just and principled system of government that operates in the best interests of the electorate. Okay, okay, so I’m a hopeless idealist. I know, I know. Anyway, carrying on… I don’t have any ideological objection to the state providing education and health care, for instance (just so long as we get value for our tax pounds). Neither though, do I have any objection to private alternatives for those who wish to opt out. In general, I prefer the markets to operate with minimal interference from government as, I believe, they will operate more efficiently for it. That, to many, makes me right wing. Yet my lack of objection to the state providing health and education makes me left wing. Therein lies the problem with labels. I am neither. I take my stance according to the issue at hand. The issue at hand at the moment is the gross erosion of personal liberty we face from our government, the US government and the EU. Given that I object to the rank authoritarian approach by these “benevolent” bodies, that must make me a libertarian. If I am to have a label, then that is one I can live with.
*I trust this meets with approval – I could have used egregious, but refrained.
Thanks for the thoughtful clarification. Of course I realise that you’re not an American Thatcherite on steroids of the sort one finds discussed in the Wikipedia article on libertarianism; my distrust of the term, I think, derives from having lived in California for a couple of years and encountering people who used the term to justify the most extra-ordinary policies. There, ‘libertarianism’ seemed all too often to mean, in practice, upholding the inalienable rights of the rich and powerful to exercise their liberty to do pretty much what they wanted to the less rich and powerful in order to maintain their wealth and power, often backed up by manifestly repressive measures. Like you, I distrust labels such as left and right in politics. In fact, I distrust ideological labels in general because they tend to imply there’s a proper ideological ordering of society, and I don’t see it that way. My view, I think — which, in practical terms, comes down to pretty much the same thing as yours is — is best described by Michael Oakeshott in his essay ‘On Being Conservative‘ (which I think would be better called ‘On Being conservative’, since he’s clearly talking about an attitude of mind rather than a party affiliation). There he writes that government is a
And, as he explains — and this is why I distrust political labels and ideological justifications –
Trust those colonials to mangle the language… 😆
The behaviour you mention in California is the antithesis if libertarianism as I understand it and as I see it displayed in other British bloggers who espouse the same ideology.
I tend to liken it to article 29(2) of the declaration of human rights – that is, freedoms are limited when they have a detrimental effect on others. The people you describe in California were simply bullies hiding behind a label. So maybe you are right about those labels.
I tend to get irritated when people apply labels to me and expect a consistent political stance on every subject. Maybe that’s why I fell out with Bob Piper. As I commented in my article, my stance is decided on an issue by issue basis.
Possibly a closer description of my own position is that of classical liberal. You won’t find much more lassez faire than me.
Try to be fair and am certainly lazy, me.