My Version of Libertarianism

Libertarianism is more of a political than an economic philosophy. Though many libertarians owe their economic perspective from the Austrian School of economics, a distinction must be maintained between the two. Furthermore, libertarianism has diverse schools of thought under it including anarchism, left libertarianism, classical liberalism, and many more. Classical liberalism upholds minarchism, the concept of limited government. With this kind of libertarian political economy, we will see a society with lesser government intervention in economic affairs, fewer number of bureaucrats, lower taxes, reduction in government spending, and maximum exercise of both personal and economic freedom. 

Photo Credit

Classical liberals are realistic in their political assessment that to completely abolish the civil government is not only an impossible task, but a utopian dream; it is unachievable. Minarchist libertarians dream of a limited government, which role is confined to make the economic environment conducive to the free operation of the market. The focus of the government is not to intervene in economic affairs, but to protect life, freedom, and private property of the citizens both from domestic and foreign aggression. 

For classical liberals, the increasing number of bureaucrats is an evidence of the gradual loss of personal and economic freedom of the people simply because maintaining the bureaucratic machinery requires increasing amount of taxes. This is the reason why libertarians advocate lower taxes for they see taxation as the means for civil government to grow its size and its spending. By reducing taxation and government spending, people are left with bigger amount of cash in their pocket, which they can spend in whatever ends they choose. 

The maximum exercise of personal and economic freedom is related to all these previous considerations: government intervention, bureaucracy, taxation, and government spending. Economic freedom is just an extension of personal freedom and access to sound money is its very substance. To advance freedom, the government should refrain from its monopoly of the money supply and return the control of money back to the market. 

Personal Response to the 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2

Both men agree in advocating for freedom, maintaining social order, upholding limited government, and in expressing concern for the economy and people's welfare. However, though both affirm the principle of limited government, they differ as to its extent. For Dr. Bennett, education and interfering in business particularly in times of economic crisis are parts of his concept of limited government. Rev. Opitz does not want the government to interfere in these spheres. Doing so, would lead to destructive ends. 

The major difference between the two is in the method to achieve their goals. For Dr. Bennett, the State plays a key role in realizing his concepts of freedom, order, and welfare. For Rev. Opitz, the State must stay away from the economy and focus instead on its legitimate function, the protection of life, liberty, and property. 

After reading the positions of both men, I see that clarity in the role of the state is critical in this debate. I don't have the privilege of knowing more about the position of Rev. Opitz on this matter. On the other hand, after knowing the arguments of Dr. Bennett, it convinced me all the more about the soundness of the libertarian case. It appears to me, that the man lacks basic understanding how the economy works. I do not doubt his sincerity about his faith in the state to address problems related to the economy. But due to his intellectual gap, he fails to see the role of the state in creating the problems that it later claims to solve. Moreover, though Dr. Bennett mentions that the state is a servant of society, but in most cases, it appears that he equates the interests of the state with that of the society. 

This debate was published in 1953. Perhaps, Dr. Bennett won that day. After 61 years, following the policies similar to Dr. Bennett's, the US is now facing an economic tsunami. It has a total of $17.9 trillion debt and $222 trillion unfunded liabilities. But despite of this, the libertarian case is still ignored. . . .

References:

Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue

US Debt Clock

US 222 trillion total fiscal gap/unfunded liabilities

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2

This is the second part and the conclusion of the debate between Rev. Opitz and Dr. Bennett. 

Rev. Edumund A. Opitz

Rev. Opitz divided his reply to Dr. Bennett into four parts: right of self-defense, helping some by hurting others, tyranny of power, and the planned economy. 

Rev. Opitz accepts that Dr. Bennett also wants to limit the power of the government. However, when the professor mentioned about the need "to work here experimentally rather than dogmatically" in order to limit the power of the government, for Rev. Opitz, this confirms that in the mind of the theology professor, that moral principles applicable to individuals "do not apply when individuals act on behalf of government." "In short, the state is beyond the human judgments of good and evil which are relevant to individuals."

1. Right of self-defense

After giving his opening statement, Rev. Opitz explains the meaning of the "right of self defense." This is related to habving an "a priori moral principles", which are relevant to politics. Rev. Opitz elaborates more:

"If the individual has any inherent, God-given right to be on this earth at all, then he has the corollary right to defend his life. This is true of all men equally. They are within their moral rights to use force if need be to defend themselves against violence initiated against them. If men individually have this moral right, they may severally delegate it provisionally to an agent. This agent, government, has the moral right to use force only as the delegating individuals have a right; namely, defensively to neutralize force. This accords with the basic principle that no man has a right to impose his will on another, and with its corollary that every person has a right to resist the imposition of an alien will over his own."

"Government is the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. A law is not a mere suggestion; it has a penalty provision as a rider. There is no need to pass a law to make people do what they do naturally or can easily be persuaded to do. Every law supersedes the wills of some individuals, forcing them to do what their own will and conscience would not lead them to do; or, conversely, restrains them from doing what they want to do or think they ought to do. It is morally right to use legal force to frustrate criminal action for the protection of peaceful citizens. But the use of legal force against peaceful citizens is something else again. It impairs the moral principle which should guide political action."

After giving his brief exposition of "a priori moral principles", he identifies that there are groups of men who seem to be unaware about the "coercive nature of political action." They include people who implement the act of coercion itself and people like Dr. Bennett who advocates for the "extension of government functions, regulations, and controls."

2. Helping some by hurting others.

In advocating for social goals using political means, there are people who will never be convinced as a matter of principle for they think that such policy is "morally and economically unsound." However, though they do not give their consent, they will be forced to follow the will of those who advocate for such social aims due to the support of the state. As a result of this, they are deprived of their freedom of choice. If these people will insist and will fight for their principle "to the bitter end", they may end up as victims of violence from the hands of the agents of the state.

Rev. Opitz believes that Dr. Bennett does not advocate this, but this is the logical end of his position. If Dr. Bennett therefore is opposed to such an end, he should stop advocating for such type of political action. 

At this point, Rev. Opitz explains what he means by "helping some by hurting others." He accepts that collectivists and central planners have noble aims. They want to help the people. But their chosen political means would helping some people at the expense of others. 

The government serves as a tool of freedom if it protects the rights of each citizen. In implementing this function, it is legitimate for the state to use of coercion to individuals who harm others.

When Dr. Bennett mentions about the "blind working of economic processes", for Rev. Opitz, the former is referring to a different kind of coercion. He then explains the real meaning of the phrase:

"What you speak of as 'the blind working of economic processes' is really the resultant of millions of individuals making voluntary decisions as to how they will dispose their limited energy so as to maximize their material and spiritual satisfactions." 

A central planner can coerce these voluntary decisions by force. Doing this, it will result into both "economic chaos" and "spiritual disaster" due to human pride. 

3. Tyranny of Power

For Rev. Opitz, the only action that politicians can do in economic sphere is to "grant privileges", which means once again that they can only "confer advantages on some at the expense of others." He then challenged Dr. Bennett to scrutinize the real origin of what the professor mentioned as "the tyranny of private centers of economic power." Doing this, he would certainly discover that such private institutions rely on the favor of politicians either in the form of a "tariff" or a "subsidy." If not, this anomaly exposes the failure of the government to implement the laws against "predation." Rev. Opitz emphasized that as long as politicians intervene in the market, "injustice and the resulting economic dislocations" will never disappear. 

Rev. Opitz criticizes Dr. Bennett's way of fighting totalitarianism. People who embraced a portion of totalitarian philosophy can never fight this ideology. The meaning of the phrase "ineffective state" is not clear to the mind of Rev. Opitz. For a libertarian, an "effective state" for Dr. Bennett is a government that created numerous regulations to extend its arm on "economic activities such as housing, insurance, medical care, electrical power, and so on." A libertarian oppses this. An "ineffective state" is not needed in these economic activities. The best thing the state can do is to keep away from these realms. If not, the state will become a tool of injustice. What the libertarian wants is a state that is "sufficiently virile and alert to perform adequately the functions within its competence."

4. Planned Economy

Rev. Opitz frankly declraes that a "collectivist or planned economy philosophy has a grave defect." He describes this defect:

"It tends towards a fixation, at the level of comprehension in social affairs men have now attained. It gives legal sanction to practices which trouble the sensitive conscience, and it places legal obstacles in the path of the gifted innovator." 

On the other hand, a libertarian philosophy is "open-ended toward life." It acknowledges human limitation. For a libertarian, no one has the right to impose his will on others. 

Once the idea of "extended and accelerated functions" of the government is accepted, people "will be politically directed and controlled in ever-widening areas of their lives." And the logical end is "a society in which whatever is not forbidden is compulsory." Laws will restrict the citizens freedom and will limit their alternatives. 

In a libertarian philosophy, the goal is to provide enough space for people to develop their fullest potential. If people will abuse such freedom by harming others, this is the right context to use the "coercive apparatus" of the state to defend the person's life and property "against the murder, the thief, the libeller, the fraud." People are free to commit crimes, but they will face justice as a consequence of their action. 

A peaceful society can be achieved through the "system of the division of labor, the marketplace, the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas." Such society always receives threats from private acts of violence coming from people who do not want to follow the law or from the government itself that perverts its true function.

Dr. John C. Bennett

Dr. Bennett divides his response by clarifying first a misunderstanding, and then he proceeds to enumerate the major issues that separate them.

1. Clarifying the misunderstanding

The misunderstanding centers on the idea of "a priori moral principles". Dr. Bennett denies that his refusal to accept the applicability of "a priori moral principles" to politics does not mean that he believes that the moral principles applicable to indviduals are not relevant to government. He argues that the application is not as easy as Rev. Opitz perceives it and not because of the absence of permanent moral principles, but due to the tension in the principles that will be applied. 

The most common tension is connected to the relationship between justice and freedom or order and freedom. Above all principles, love for neighbors is the principle that should guide Christian conduct. The reason why the application is complicated is due to the fact of conflicts in interests and sometimes due to the varied needs of our neighbors themselves. As a consequence, most Christian actions are to be implemented in a complex and rapidly changing situation that "a priori moral principles" are incapable of. 

Dr. Bennet does not believe that the state is beyond the standard of right and wrong. He accepts that the state has functions different from that of an individual. And because of this, the situation of the state is more complex than the situation of an individual. This makes the application of moral principles difficult. A Christian citizen who happens to help either in the formulation or implementation of government poliicies has to consider the welfare and dignity of those who will be affected. This noble motive and the need for humility before God, we cannot therefore allow any concept or social order to become "absolute or frozen." Instead, we should be sensitive to the needs and interests of others. These are the "moral resources" where we need to derive our concrete actions for every situation rather than depend on a precise "a priori principles."

2. Primary issues

The first issue has to do with Rev. Opitz' lack of interest in community and the common good. Dr. Bennett noticed that the libertarian advocate did not mentionthe importance of community and common good. For the theology professor, the statement of the apostle Paul about "being 'members one of another'" is relevant not only to the church, but to the larger community as well where we belong to, Besides the fact of human interdependence, Dr. Bennett dreams of a society that share "common values." He is referring to a society that is not divided between the very rich and the very poor and families in it that do not lack minimum "protection against the hazards of unemployment, sickness and old age." Dr Bennett is talking here about "common good" that can only be achieved through "common action." The state plays a significant role in achieving this. 

The second issue concerns the threats to common good and welfare of individuals. The problems of modern society are so complex that cannot be solved by independent individual actions. At this point, Dr. Bennett argues that Rev. Opitz' idea of "laissez faire" is no longer relevant to modern time. Dr. Bennett picks unemployment as an example of problems that the market is incapable of solving. The solution cannot be found in "decentralization" or "individualism". Only the state is capable to address this. In the end, Dr. Bennett's recommendation is for cooperation between the market and the state, which is better known as the "mixed economy." If this solution will fail, the remaining alternative is "tyrannical collectivism."

The third issue is about the nature of freedom. In the mind of Dr. Bennett, Rev. Opitz emphasizes only the freedom of those who are already well established socially and economically and neglects the freedom of the majority. Only the state has the ability to depend the weak from the strong. 

The fourth issue is about the insufficiency of private charity. Private charity cannot be relied on in giving of opportunities, rights and freedom due to the size of the problems. Instead, it is better to consider them as matters of justice. Christian generosity is proven by its "willingness to be taxed or to cooperate in the interests of justice." 

Dr. Bennett is not convinced that his proposal is theft. He argues that the wealth of an individual is a product of a social process where the members of the community contribute to its growth. And besides, the society has responsibility to provide opportunities for the less fortunate similar to the opportunities enjoyed by those in the upper level of social ladder. 

Dr. Bennett ends his response with a word of warning: "Insofar as you are successful in preventing experiments in the solution of the real problems of our economy and of our people you and your movement will help to destroy freedom."


Source: Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2 (Tag-lish Version)

Ito ang ikalawa at konklusiyon ng debate sa pagitan nina Rev. Opitz at Dr. Bennett. 

Rev. Edumund A. Opitz

Bilang naatasan na unang magpahayag ng kaniyang posisyon, hinati ni Rev. Opitz ang kaniyang tugon kay Dr. Bennett sa apat na mga paksa: right of self-defense, helping some by hurting others, tyranny of power, and the planned economy. 

Tinanggap ni Rev. Opitz ang posisyon ni Dr. Bennett ukol sa pagbibigay ng hangganan sa kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Subalit nang banggitin ni Dr. Bennett ang pangungusap na "We have to work here experimentally rather than dogmatically" na may kinalaman sa kaparaanan kung paano lilimitahan ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, para kay Rev. Opitz, ito ay nagpapahiwatig lamang na base sa pananaw ni Dr. Bennett na ang "moral principles by which individuals are judged do not apply when individuals act on behalf of government." "In short, the state is beyond the human judgments of good and evil which are relevant to individuals."

1. Right of self-defense

Pagkatapos banggitin ang pambungad na pananalita, tinalakay na ni Rev. Opitz ang nais niyang tukuyin ukol sa "right of self defense." Ito ay may kinalaman sa pagtatakda ng "a priori moral principles" na kung saan ay lubhang napakahalaga sa larangan ng politika. Ganito ipinaliwanag ni Rev. Opitz ang moral principles na ito:

"If the individual has any inherent, God-given right to be on this earth at all, then he has the corollary right to defend his life. This is true of all men equally. They are within their moral rights to use force if need be to defend themselves against violence initiated against them. If men individually have this moral right, they may severally delegate it provisionally to an agent. This agent, government, has the moral right to use force only as the delegating individuals have a right; namely, defensively to neutralize force. This accords with the basic principle that no man has a right to impose his will on another, and with its corollary that every person has a right to resist the imposition of an alien will over his own."

"Government is the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. A law is not a mere suggestion; it has a penalty provision as a rider. There is no need to pass a law to make people do what they do naturally or can easily be persuaded to do. Every law supersedes the wills of some individuals, forcing them to do what their own will and conscience would not lead them to do; or, conversely, restrains them from doing what they want to do or think they ought to do. It is morally right to use legal force to frustrate criminal action for the protection of peaceful citizens. But the use of legal force against peaceful citizens is something else again. It impairs the moral principle which should guide political action."

Pagkatapos ng pagpapaliwanag sa "a priori moral principles", binanggit ni Rev. Opitz na may dalawang grupo ng mga tao na walang kabatiran sa "coercive nature of political action." At ito ay ang mga tao na nagsasagawa ng coercion mismo at ang mga taong tulad ni Dr. Bennett na nagtataguyod ng "extension of government functions, regulations, and controls."

2. Helping some by hurting others.

Dagdag pa ni Rev. Opitz, sa pagtataguyod ng isang mithiing panlipunan gamit ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, may mga tao na hindi kumbinsido dito bunga ng paniniwala na ang ganitong mga hakbangin ay "morally and economically unsound." Bagamat hindi sang-ayon ang mga taong ito, sila ay mapipilitan na sumunod sa kapasiyahan ng mga tagapagtaguyod ng mithiing panlipunan dahilan sa nasa kanilang panig ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Bunga nito, sila ay naalisan ng karapatan upang maisakatuparan ang pinaniniwalaang mithiing panlipunan. Kung magpupumilit ang mga taong ito na manindigan sa kanilang prinsipiyo "to the bitter end", sila ay maaaring maging biktima ng karahasan o maaaring maging dahilan pa ito ng kanilang kamatayan mula sa kamay ng mga kinatawan ng estado. 

Naniniwala si Rev. Opitz na hindi ito ang tinataguyod ni Dr. Bennett, subalit ito ang hahantungan ng kaniyang paniniwala. Kung magkagayon, kung salungat si Dr. Bennett sa hantungan na ito, dapat niya na ring tigilan ang pagtataguyod ng hakbanging politikal na nagdudulot nito. 

Sa puntong ito binanggit ni Rev. Opitz ang ibig niyang sabihin sa "helping some by hurting others." Tanggap ni Rev. Opitz na marangal ang layunin ng mga collectivists o ng mga central planners. Nais nilang tulungan ang mga mamamayan. Subalit ang kaparaanan na kanilang ginagamit, walang iba kundi sa pamamagitan ng hakbanging politikal ay nangangahulugan lamang ng pagtulong sa ibang mga tao na siya namang nakakapinsala sa iba. 

Ayon kay Rev. Opitz, ang pamahalaan ay instrumento lamang ng kalayaan kung pinoproteksiyonan nito ang mga karapatan ng bawat mamamayan. Sa pagsasakatuparan ng tungkuling ito, maaaring gumamit ang pamahalaan ng coercion sa mga indibidwal na nagbibigay pinsala sa kanilang kapwa. 

Nang banggitin ni Dr. Bennett ang tungkol sa "blind working of economic processes", para kay Rev. Opitz, ibang uri ng coercion ang nasa isipan ng propesor. Ipinaliwanag ni Rev. Opitz ang tunay na kahulugan ng nabanggit na phrase: "What you speak of as 'the blind working of economic processes' is really the resultant of millions of individuals making voluntary decisions as to how they will dispose their limited energy so as to maximize their material and spiritual satisfactions." Maaaring biguin ng isang central planner ang kalayaang ito sa pamamagitan ng pagamit ng puwersa. Ang pag-agaw ng kalayaan ay magdudulot kapwa ng "economic chaos", at "spiritual disaster" dulot ng pagmamataas. 

3. Tyranny of Power

Sa ikatlong paksa, tinalakay ni Rev. Opitz ang "tyranny of power." Ayon sa kaniya, pag dating sa ekonomiya, ang tanging magagawa ng mga politiko is to "grant privileges" na ang ibig sabihin ay "it can confer advantages on some at the expense of others." Sa puntong ito, binanggit niya ang phrase na ginamit ni Dr. Bennett tungkol sa "the tyranny of private centers of economic power." Hinamon niya si Dr. Bennet na suriin ang itinuturing na "private center of economic power", at sa tuwina ay masusumpungan na ang mga pribadong institusiyong ito ay umasa ng pabor sa mga politiko either in the form of a "tariff" or a "subsidy." Kung hindi naman, ito ay tumutukoy sa kabiguan ng gobyerno na isakatuparan ang mga batas laban sa "predation." Binigyang diin ni Rev. Opitz na habang nakikialam ang mge politiko sa merkado, hindi mawawala ang "injustice and the resulting economic dislocations."

Pinuna rin ni Rev. Opitz ang rekomendasyon ni Dr. Bennett ukol sa paglaban sa totalitariyanismo. Para kay Rev. Opitz, hindi magagawang labanan ng isang yumayakap kahit na bahagya lamang sa pilosopiya ng totalitariyanismo ang puwersa ng totalitariyanismo. Hindi rin malinaw para kay Rev. Opitz ang ibig sabihin ni Dr. Bennet sa phrase na "ineffective state." Sa tingin ng libertarian, ang "effective state" sa pananaw ni Dr. Bennett ay ang estado na maraming nilikhang mga regulasyon upang saklawan ang mga "economic activities" tulad ng "housing, insurance, medical care, electrical power, and so on." Ito ang lubos na tinututulan ng isang libertarian. Hindi kailangan ang "ineffective state" sa mga economic activities na ito. The best thing the state can do is to keep away from these realms. Sapagkat kung hindi ito gagawin ng pamahalaan, ito ay magiging instrumento ng "injustice." Ang nais ng isang libertarian ay isang pamahalaan na "sufficiently virile and alert to perform adequately the functions within its competence."

4. Planned Economy

Sa huling bahagi ng kaniyang tugon, tahasang binanggit ni Rev. Opitz na ang "collectivist or planned economy philosophy has a grave defect." Isinalarawan ni Rev. Opitz ang depektong ito:

"It tends towards a fixation, at the level of comprehension in social affairs men have now attained. It gives legal sanction to practices which trouble the sensitive conscience, and it places legal obstacles in the path of the gifted innovator." 

Sa kabilang banda, ang libertarian philosophy ay "open-ended toward life." Kinikilala nito ang limitasyon ng tao. Para sa isang libertarian, walang sinuman ang may karapatan na magdikta ng kaniyang kapasiyahan sa iba.

Sa oras na tanggapin ang "extended and accelerated functions" ng pamahalaan sa lipunan, ito ay mangangahulugan na ang mga tao "will be politically directed and controlled in ever-widening areas of their lives." Ang "logical end" nito ay isang lipunan na ang mga bagay na hindi ipinagbabawal ay magiging sapilitan. Ang kalayaan ng mga mamamayan ay sasaklawan ng mga batas at pakikitirin nito ang kanilang mga alternatibo. 

Sa libertarian philosophy, ang layunin ay bigyang laya ang mga tao upang maisagawa nila ang kanilang buong kakayanan. Kung aabusuhin ng tao ang kalayaang ito na ibubunga ng pagsalanta sa iba, dito nararapat gamitin ang "coercive apparatus" ng pamahalaan upang maipagtanggol ang buhay at ari-arian ng isang tao laban sa mga mamamatay tao, mga magnanakaw, mga mapanirang puri, at mga manlilinlang. Malaya ang tao na gumawa ng krimen subalit haharapin nila ang hustisya bunga ng kanilang mga desisyon.

Ang isang mapayapang lipunan ay makakamtan sa pamamagitan ng "system of the division of labor, the marketplace, the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas." Ang kapayapaang ito ay nakatatanggap ng banta sa tuwina mula sa mga pribadong gawain ng karahasan ng mga mamamayan na ayaw sumunod sa batas o mula sa pamahalaan mismo na naligaw sa pagsasakatuparan ng kaniyang tunay na tungkulin. 

Dr. John C. Bennett

Hinati ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa dalawang bahagi: paglilinaw sa maling pagkaunawa at pagtalakay sa mga pangunahing isyus na naghihiwalay sa kanilang dalawa ni Rev. Opitz. 

1. Paglilinaw sa maling pagkaunawa

Ang maling pagkaunawa ay may kinalaman sa nabanggit ni Rev. Opitz na "a priori principles". Itinanggi ni Dr. Bennett na ang hindi niya pagtanggap sa "a priori moral principles" na binanggit ni Rev. Opitz ay hindi nangangahulugan na ang mga moral principles na sumasaklaw sa mga indibidwal ay hindi angkop sa mga polisiya ng pamahalaan. Ang paglalapat ay mahirap gawin hindi dahil sa kawalan ng permanenteng moral principles, bagkus ay sa pagkakaroon ng tensiyon mismo sa mga prinsipiyo na dapat ilapat. 

Ang pinakapangkaraniwang mga tensiyon ay may kaugnayan sa pagitan ng hustisya at kalayaan o kaayusan at kalayaan. Higit sa lahat, ang pinakamahalagang prinsipiyo na dapat na magsilbing gabay sa pagkilos ng mga Cristiano ay walang iba kundi ang pag-ibig sa kapwa. Kung bakit nagiging kumplikado ang paglalapat ng mga moral principles ay sa dahilan na may mga pagsasalungatan sa mga interes at kung minsan ay sa pangangailangan mismo ng ating kapwa. Bunga nito, karamihan ng mga hakbanging Cristiano ay kailangang ilapat sa mga kumplikado at patuloy na nagbabagong mga situwasyon na hindi kayang punuan ng anumang " a priori moral principles."

Hindi naniniwala si Dr. Bennet na ang estado ay lampas sa pamantayan ng tama o mali na sumasaklaw sa buhay ng mga indibidwal. Tinatanggap niya na ang estado ay may mga tungkulin na kakaiba kaysa sa mga indibidwal na dapat isakatuparan. At dahilan dito, mas komplikado ang situwasyon ng estado kaysa sa situwasyon ng indibidwal. Bunga nito, mahirap ilapat ang mga prinsipiyong moral. Ang isang mamamayan kung siya ay isang Cristiano na tumutulong sa paglikha o paglalapat ng mga patakaran ng pamahalaan, kaniyang isasaalang-alang ang kapakanan at dignidad ng mga taong maaapektuhan. Dulot ng ganitong motibo at kababaang loob sa harapan ng Diyos, hindi natin maaaring ituring na ang isang konsepto ukol sa balangkas ng lipunan na maging "absolute or frozen." Sa halip, patuloy tayong dapat na maging sensitibo sa mga pangangailangan at mga interes ng iba. Ito ang mga "moral resources" na dapat nating pagbatayan ng mga konkretong desisyon sa bawat situwasyon sa halip na umasa sa mga tiyak na "a priori principles."

2. Mga pangunahing isyus 

Ang unang isyu ay may kinalaman sa hindi pagbibigay diin ni Rev. Opitz sa komyunidad at sa "common good." Pinansin ni Dr. Bennett na halos walang binanggit si Rev. Opitz sa kaniyang tugon ukol sa kahalagahan ng komyunidad at common good. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang mga pananalita ni apostol Pablo ukol sa pagiging "bahagi ng bawat isa" ay dapat na isabuhay hindi lamang sa iglesia kundi sa higit na malaking komyunidad na ating kinabibilangan. 

Bukod sa interdependence ng sangkatauhan, pangarap ni Dr. Bennett na magkaroon ng "common values" sa lipunan. Ang nais niyang tukuyin dito ay isang lipunan na hindi nahahati sa labis na kayamanan at labis na kahirapan at mga pamilya na hindi kinukulang sa proteksiyon laban sa kawalan ng hanapbuhay, karamdaman o pagtanda. Ang tinutukoy dito ni Dr. Bennett ay ang "common good" na matatamo lamang sa pamamagitan ng sama-samang pagkilos. At sa kaniyang pananaw, napakahalaga ng papel ng estado upang maisakatuparan ang mithiing ito. 

Ang ikalawang isyu ay tungkol sa mga malawakang banta sa common good at sa kapakanan ng mga indibidwal. Napakakomplikado ng modernong lipunan na ito ay hindi kayang lunasan ng mga indibidwal na kumikilos ng kaniya-kaniya. Sa puntong ito, pinuna ni Dr. Bennett ang paniniwala ni Rev. Opitz ukol sa "laissez faire" na sa tingin ng propesor ay hindi na angkop sa modernong panahon at imposible ng balikan. Binanggit ni Dr. Bennett ang suliranin ukol sa kawalan ng hanapbuhay. Hindi ito kayang lunasan ng merkado. Ang lunas sa pananaw ng propesor ay wala sa "decentralization" o "individualism". Napakahalaga ng papel ng estado upang masawata ito. Sa bandang huli, ang mungkahi ni Dr. Bennett na solusyon ay kooperasyon sa pagitan ng estado at ng merkado, na mas higit na kilala sa tawag na "mixed economy." Kung mabibigo ang kooperasyon na ito, ang kahahantungan ay walang iba kundi "tyrannical collectivism."

Ang ikatlong isyu ay tungkol sa nature ng kalayaan. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang binibigyang diin lamang ni Rev. Opitz ay ang kalayaan ng mga taong nakakaangat na sa buhay at kinakaligtaan ang kalayaan ng higit na nakararami. At tanging ang estado lamang ang may kakayanan upang ipagtanggol ang mga mahihina laban sa mga malalakas. 

Ang ikaapat na isyu ay may kinalaman sa kakulangan ng private charity. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang pagbibigay ng mga oportunidad, mga karapatan at kalayaan ay hindi dapat ipagkatiwala sa private charity. Ito ay sa dahilan na ang private charity ay hindi sapat sa laki ng suliranin. Bagkus, higit na mainam na ang pagbibigay ng mga oportunidad na ito ay dapat na ituring na bahagi ng hustisya. Ang pagiging bukas-palad ng mga Cristiano ay makikita sa pagsang-ayon na mabuwisan o magpakita ng kooperasyon para sa kapakanan ng hustisya. 

Hindi kumbinsido si Dr. Bennett na ang pagbubuwis sa ganitong paraan ay paglabag sa ikawalong utos, ang pagnanakaw. Ang kayamanan ng isang tao ay produkto ng proseso sa lipunan na kung saan ang komunidad sa kabuuan ay nakatulong sa paglago nito. May katungkulan ang lipunan upang magkaroon ng mga oportunidad ang mga kapus-palad tulad ng mga oportunidad na tinatamasa ng mga nakaririwasa. 

Tinapos ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa isang babala. Ayon sa kaniya, kung magtatagumpay si Rev. Opitz sa pagpigil sa paglalapat ng lunas sa tunay na suliranin ng ekonomiya at ng mga mamamayan, wawasakin ni Rev. Opitz at ng kilusan na kaniyang kinabibilangan ang kalayaan.


English Version


Source: Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1

Just finished reading the debate between a libertarian and a liberal from "Faith and Freedom" published in the months of April and May 1953. Dr. John C. Bennett represents liberalism who served as a professor of Christian theology and ethics at Union Theological Seminary. Rev. Edmund A. Opitz is the libertarian who headed the regional conferences of "Faith and Freedom." The style of the debate is in the form of a personal letter. It has two parts. In this aticle, I just want to summarize the gist of their positions.

Rev. Edmund A. Opitz

Rev. Opitz had the privilege to introduce his position first. The sum of what he said is divided into four parts: mental adventure, indoctrination, the unknown case, and the basic question.

Under mental adventure, Rev. Optiz mentions that the pronouncements of church councils about "planned economy, or a welfare state, or socialism, or a mixed economy" are not attractive to him. For him, the recommended solutions are "nothing but an articulate form of the disease: government force against persons to cure the evils caused by prior political intervention."

Turning to indoctrination, the kind of doctrine Rev. Opitz refers to has something to do with the idea that the government is perceived as a "proper and efficient means to accomplish the end of general prosperity and security for individuals against the uncertainties of modern life." This was achieved through the propagation of the "social gospel or the welfare state idea." Seminarians did not have the opportunity to listen to an alternative concept. As a result, seminarians believed that "genuine concern for his fellows and for the good of society would lead a man to embrace the progressive extension of the functions and controls of government." And anyone who resisted this program was considered selfish.

The unknown case pertains to the absence of awareness of the seminarians about "classical liberalism", which "has long roots in the past and an impressive literature, and that it has a strong moral and intellectual case." Students never learned this in their formal education. Instead, what was taught was a "caricature" of the philosophy. However, based on the experience of Rev Opitz, after perusing the books of "social gospellers and the welfare-staters," and after talking to Dr. Bennett and other men who were "professionally engaged on one or the other of the various church councils for social action," he realized that the reason why the "libertarian case" was not taught in the seminaries was because the theological circles were not aware ot it.

The basic question is related to "Christian judgment" about the limitation of the power of the government. But before he mentioned it, Rev. Opitz showed the difference between the state and the society, and in what way can the state serves the society: "The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence. So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace? The libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peacebreakers."

Dr. John C. Bennett 

As a response, Dr. Bennett identifies at the outset the difference of his "presuppositions" from Rev. Opitz. It was his intention to clarify few misunderstandings by explaining three subjects: limited government, the essential element, and the main issue.

Dr. Bennett believes in limited government. Basic to his idea is the difference between the state and the society. And since the society is composed of different kinds of associations, "swampint the life of all other associations by the state is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, evil of our age." He assured Rev. Opitz that they are one in opposing the growth of a totalitarian state.

For Dr. Bennett, it is misleading to say that the essence of the state is found in coercion or violence. He emphasizes the need of society for the state "to preserve public order." In addition, he also believes that the state exists to serve the purposes of the society, and many of these purposes do not require the use of "coercion" or "violence." And then he identifies the means to limit the power o the government:

"The state should be limited by its own law which protects the freedom of minorities, of individuals, of many kinds of association. The state should be limited by the recognition on the part of the citizens that there is a law above the state and above the national community as well. The state should be limited by a pluralistic structure within the state itself, with division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the recognition that functions should be distributed between various regional political units."

About the essential element, it has something to do with the provision of "educational opportunity" to children. To achieve this requires coercion in relation to taxation. However, this coercion in not the essential element in education. It is bettter perceived as the "constructive function" of the state.

In the last subject, "main issue", Dr. Bennett identifies the basic difference of his position from Rev. Opitz about the relationship of the state to freedom: "I think that the chief difference between us is that you regard the state as the chief enemy of freedom in all situations whereas I believe that the state may be an instrument of freedom for its citizens."

Dr. Bennett accepts that freedom has many enemies that only the state can effectively stop them. Among these enemies, he singled out the "business cycle", which to him is a kind of "coercion that results from the blind working of economic processes." When this happens, the state must do something to prevent economic depression that will save people "from the tyranny of circumstances that are beyond their control as individuals." This is a necessity to prevent the emergence of totalitarianism for based on history, this dictatorial tendency occurred not "through the gradual expansion of the functions of the state", but through "catastrophes that are the result of the failure of weak states to deal adequately with the problems of the people."

As a warning, Dr. Bennett mentions that the policy followed by Rev. Opitz and his group is actually "indirectly" helping in the rise of totalitarianism that he resents. For the professor, the idea of Rev. Opitz about the state will create a "vacuum into which the advocates of totalitarianism may move."

Dr. Bennett concludes his message:

"It will require very great wisdom which is free from the dogmas of the right or the left to enable our country to steer a course in the next period that will use the state to help people preserve freedom from the tyranny of circumstances and from the tyranny of private centers of economic power without over-extending the activity of the state, especially without overcentralizing it."

Tag-lish Version

Source: Faith and Freedom April 1953 Issue

Other Helpful Links:

1. Amazon

2. Faith and Freedom

3. Mises Daily

4. pdf files

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1 (Tag-lish Version)

Katatapos ko lang basahin kahapon ang debate ng isang liberal at isang libertarian sa "Faith and Freedom" na nilathala noong mga buwan ng Abril at Mayo taon 1953. Ang liberal ay si Dr. John C. Bennett na naging propesor ng Christian theology at ethics sa Union Theological Seminary. Ang libertarian naman ay si Rev. Edmund A. Opitz na siyang namuno sa mga conferences ng "Faith and Freedom." Ang istilo ng debate ay sa anyo ng liham sa isa't-isa. Ito ay may dalawang bahagi. Nais kong buudin ang nilalaman ng kanilang mga posisyon sa artikulong ito sa pamamagitan ng pagpili ng mga punto na sa tingin ko ay pinakamahalaga. 

Rev. Edmund A. Opitz

Unang nagsalita si Rev. Opitz. Ang buod ng kaniyang sinabi ay maaaring hatiin sa apat na mga punto: mental adventure, indoctrination, the unknown case, and the basic question.

Sa mental adventure, binanggit ni Rev. Optiz na walang dating sa kaniya ang mga pronouncements ng mga church councils na may kinalaman sa "planned economy, or a welfare state, or socialism, or a mixed economy." Para sa kaniya ang mga lunas na binabanggit ng mga church councils ay "nothing but an articulate form of the disease: government force against persons to cure the evils caused by prior political intervention."

Sa indoctrination, ang tinutukoy ni Rev. Opitz na doktrina ay ang pananaw na ang gobyerno ay itinuturing na "proper and efficient means to accomplish the end of general prosperity and security for individuals against the uncertainties of modern life." Sa pamamagitan ng sapilitamg pagsusubo ng "social gospel or the welfare state idea", ang mga mag-aaral ay walang pagkakataon na mapakinggan ang ibang alternatibong pilosopiya. Ito ay magiging dahilan upang paniwalaan ng isang mag-aaral na ang "genuine concern for his fellows and for the good of society would lead a man to embrace the progressive extension of the functions and controls of government." At anumang pagsalungat sa pananaw na ito, ay ituturing na bunga ng pagiging makasarili.

Sa unknown case, ang nais tukuyin ni Rev. Opitz ay ang kawalan ng kabatiran ng mga mag-aaral ukol sa "classical liberalism" that "has long roots in the past and an impressive literature, and that it has a strong moral and intellectual case." Ito ay hindi natututunan ng mga estudyante sa kanilang "formal education." Sa halip, ang tanging itinuturo ay ang "caricature" ng pilosopiyang ito. Subalit base sa karanasan ni Rev Opitz, pagkatapos niyang maingat na suriin ang mga aklat ng mga "social gospellers and the welfare-staters," at pagkatapos niyang makipag-usap kay Dr. Bennett at sa mga kalalakihan na "professionally engaged on one or the other of the various church councils for social action," ay kaniyang napagtanto na ang dahilan kung bakit ang "libertarian case" ay hindi itinuturo sa mga seminaryo ay sa kadahilanan na ito ay hindi batid sa mga "theological circles!"

At sa panghuling punto ukol sa basic question, ito ay may kinalaman sa "Christian judgment" ukol sa limitasyon ng kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Subalit bago ito binanggit ni Rev. Opitz, ipinakita niya ang pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng lipunan at ng pamahalaan, at sa papaanong paraan makapaglilingkod ang pamahalaan sa lipunan: "The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence. So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace? The libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peacebreakers."

Dr. John C. Bennett 

Bilang katugunan, binanggit ni Dr. Bennett ang pagkakaiba ng kanilang "presuppositions" ni Rev. Opitz. Layunin ng kaniyang tugon na linawin ang ilan sa mga "misunderstandings" sa pagtukoy sa tatlong paksa: limited government, the essential element, and the main issue.

Naniniwala si Dr. Bennett na ang pamahalaan ay dapat na limitahan. Basic sa kaniyang kaisipan ang pagbibigay diin sa pagkakaiba ng estado sa lipunan. At ayon sa kaniya dahil sa ang lipunan ay binubuo ng maraming klase ng mga pagtitipon at ang pagsaklaw sa mga ito ng estado "is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, evil of our age." Binanggit niya na siya ay kaisa ni Rev. Opitz sa pagtutol sa "totalitarian state."

Para kay Dr. Bennett, "misleading" ang pagsasabi na ang essence ng state ay "coercion and violence." Ayon sa kaniya kinakailangan ang estado "to preserve public order." Dagdag pa rito, naniniwala siya na ang estado ay nabuo upang paglingkuran ang mga mithiin ng lipunan, at marami sa mga mithiing ito ay hindi nangangailangan ng paggamait ng "coercion" o "violence." Ipinaliwanag ni Dr. Bennett ang nais niyang tukuyin sa limitasyon ng kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan: 

"The state should be limited by its own law which protects the freedom of minorities, of individuals, of many kinds of association. The state should be limited by the recognition on the part of the citizens that there is a law above the state and above the national community as well. The state should be limited by a pluralistic structure within the state itself, with division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the recognition that functions should be distributed between various regional political units."

Sa pagtalakay sa "essential element", ito ay may kinalaman sa pagkakaloob ng "educational opportunity" sa mga kabataan. Ayon kay Dr. Bennett, ito ay nangangailangan ng "coercion" upang maisakatuparan na may kaugnayan sa paniningil ng buwis, subalit ang "coercion" ay hindi ang "essential element" sa edukasyon. Para kay Dr. Bennett ito ay mas angkop na isalarawan bilang "constructive function" ng estado.

Pagdating sa huling paksa, ukol sa "main issue", ayon kay Dr. Bennett ang malaking pagkakaiba sa kanilang posisyon ni Rev. Opitz ay ang pagtingin sa kaugnayan ng estado sa kalayaan: "I think that the chief difference between us is that you regard the state as the chief enemy of freedom in all situations whereas I believe that the state may be an instrument of freedom for its citizens."

Binanggit ni Dr. Bennett na maraming mga kaaway ang kalayaan na tanging ang estado lamang ang may kakayanan upang sugpuin ang mga ito. Sa mga kaaway nito, tinukoy ng propesor particularly ang "business cycle" na ayon sa kaniya ay isang uri ng "coercion that results from the blind working of economic processes." Sa puntong ito kinakailangan ang estado upang maiwasan ang pagbulusok sa economic depression na magliligtas sa mga mamamayan "from the tyranny of circumstances that are beyond their control as individuals." Ito ay kinakailangan upang maiwasan ang paglitaw ng "totalitarianism" sa dahilan na base sa kasaysayan ang totalitarianism ay hindi nabubuo "through the gradual expansion of the functions of the state", sa halip ay lumilitaw sa panahon ng mga "catastrophes that are the result of the failure of weak states to deal adequately with the problems of the people."

Bilang babala, ayon kay Dr. Bennett ang policy na sinusundan ni Rev. Opitz at ng kaniyang grupo ay nakakatulong "indirectly" sa pagbuo ng kilusan tungo sa totalitariyanismo na kaniyang kinamumuhian. Ayon sa propesor, ang pananaw ni Rev. Opitz ukol sa estado ay lilikha ng "vacuum into which the advocates of totalitarianism may move."

Tinapos ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa mensaheng ito:

"It will require very great wisdom which is free from the dogmas of the right or the left to enable our country to steer a course in the next period that will use the state to help people preserve freedom from the tyranny of circumstances and from the tyranny of private centers of economic power without over-extending the activity of the state, especially without overcentralizing it."

English Version 

Source: Faith and Freedom April 1953 Issue

My Personal Take on 6 Myths About Libertarianism

In 1980, Murray Rothbard wrote an article, Six Myths about Libertarianism claiming that “libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America.” However, he was concerned that its growth would be hampered by misconceptions and that’s why he wrote the article to clarify before the public the real character of this movement, and at the same time, educate the conservatives.

Summarizing the false charges against libertarianism, it is associated with individualism, licentiousness, rationalism, atheism, materialism, utopianism, and that it upholds every man’s perfect knowledge concerning his affairs. Let us have an overview of each of these myths:

• False association of libertarianism with a wrong notion of “individualism.”

With this association, libertarianism is said to be against any idea of collaboration and voluntary cooperation. What libertarians oppose according to Rothbard is not collaboration per se, but a counterfeit form of collaboration initiated by the state. Libertarians advocate genuine and voluntary collaboration for this political philosophy upholds that every individual influences each other.

• Identifying libertarianism with licentiousness or libertinism.

Here, Rothbard made a distinction between libertarianism and libertinism. If libertarianism is similar with libertinism as the accusers say, libertarianism then would finally leads to chaos and violence for such is the logical conclusion of a political idea without restraint. For Rothbard, the only legitimate use of violence is for self-defense. Any use of violence beyond self-defense is unlawful and criminal. Furthermore, Rothbard acknowledges the existence of diverse types of libertarianism: hedonist, bourgeois, libertines, and moral or spiritual. This could not be avoided due to the inherent character of liberty.

Personally, though I appreciate the distinction between libertarianism and libertinism, I do not agree with Rothbard’s ultimate idea of liberty. Yes, he accepts the possibility of a moral and spiritual grounding for liberty, but I suspect that basically his idea of liberty is derived from the Scholastics’ concept of natural law. Leonard E. Reed’s concept of liberty is different from Rothbard’s. In Elements of Libertarian Leadership (1962), Reed believes that faith in the Creator is the basic foundation of freedom. The other option is freedom given by the state. The third option does not exist.

• Libertarianism does not believe in moral principles, but focuses exclusively on the rationality of man.

This charge is connected to the second. It is true that there are libertarians who do not acknowledge liberty as a moral principle, but to say that all libertarians do not believe in moral principle is actually a misinterpretation. In fact, libertarians consistently apply moral principles such as murder and theft both to individuals and the government. They do not recognize the existence of a different moral standard between the individual and the government. One moral principle applies to both. The only exception libertarians could not tolerate as Rothbard understood is the use of coercion to force people to be moral. The choice to be moral or immoral is inherent in libertarianism.

• Libertarianism is atheistic and materialistic; consequently, it ignores spiritual reality.

For Rothbard, religion could not be used as a definitive categorization of libertarianism for you can find both atheists and theists embracing this political creed. Furthermore, for Rothbard, though the existence of Creator is a valid ontological question, it is irrelevant when it comes to social or political philosophy. Libertarianism could actually be accessed either through pure natural law as the Scholastics clearly taught us or through religious influence. The charge of materialism could also not stand for in the mind of Rothbard spiritual and material are inseparable.

•  Libertarians are utopians, believe in the inherent goodness of man, and therefore making State unnecessary

Depending on Rothbard’s knowledge, he does not know any libertarian who holds such a view. Libertarians are not utopians for they actually believe that man is a combination of good and evil. And that is the reason why they are against the expanding power of the state for those in power with their criminal nature could use the state to legitimize their abuses. Obviously, that is not utopianism. Moreover, the ideal society for libertarians is not realized through total disappearance of crimes, but lesser crimes. And unlike socialism, libertarians do not have a vision of remolding humanity to achieve its ideal society.

• Libertarians believe that men are perfectly wise and know what’s best for them

Both libertarians and the socialists do not believe this, but the response is different. For socialist, this is a ground for State’s intervention. For libertarians, the emphasis is on man’s freedom to act   concerning his basic rights and property. And instead of claiming for perfect knowledge, libertarians actually employ the experts’ advice for them to succeed in their endeavors.

Lessons on Statesmanship

Reading the first article of The Freeman, July – August 2012 Issue, I learned a lot about statesmanship. The article is written by Lawrence E. Reed. It is about Grover Cleveland. The article’s title is Cleveland Passed the Test of Character and Statesmanship.

Allow me to divide the lessons on statesmanship into two sections: ideas about statesmanship and qualities of a statesman.

Ideas about Statesmanship

The ideas about statesmanship are taken from two types of sources. One is from popular, but forgotten quotations penned by the writer and the other is from the reflection of the writer himself. I found three ideas related to statesmanship:

The first idea is about taxation. Grover Cleveland popularized the statement: “Though the people support the government, it is not the duty of the government to support the people.” This statement is considered unpopular in today’s standard. Public opinion resists this idea. The people are asking the state to provide for them. However, in order to give in to what the people ask, the government needs to expand its power and its revenue collection. Unknowingly, such trend is not beneficial to the public in the long run. It leads to the suppression of freedom.

A related statement from Cleveland is an appropriate critique to such expansion of the government’s power: “When more of the people’s sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government.”

Notice here that in the opinion of Cleveland, welfare state is actually leading to “ruthless extortion” and contrary to the character of a free government. Libertarians are correct that once people see that the government takes it as its duty to support the people, instead of being happy for the “generosity” of the government, the people must be cautious and be warned. It is an indication of interventionism heading to socialism. Furthermore, it is also an indication that free market economy is being suppressed.

The second idea focuses on loyalty. A certain Brodsky describes Cleveland as the “rarest of political animals” whose ultimate loyalty is not to the party, but to the country. The popular saying, “Public office is a public trust” is not merely rhetoric, but a reality for Cleveland.

And the third and final idea centers on the candidates’ qualifications for public office: honesty and statesmanship. Reed describes the honesty of Cleveland “as utterly incorruptible when he left office as he was when he first assumed it.” The second qualification is that of statesmanship. When looking for a candidate for public office, voters should seek for a candidate who is not simply a politician, but a statesman. Reed’s description is timely: “Every statesman is also a politician but not every politician is a statesman.”

Qualities of a Statesman

In a society that is becoming more and more interventionists in the passing of years, statesmanship is difficult to find among politicians. The quality of a Grover Cleveland is rare in a time where people are unconsciously heading to a socialist state. Anyway, we hope that libertarian ideas would educate increasing number of people through the web so that appreciation of statesmanship will become part of public opinion. Here is the list of qualities of a statesman as defined by Lawrence E. Reed:

• He or she doesn’t seek public office for personal gain or because it’s the only job he or she knows how to do.
• He stands for a principled vision, not for what he thinks citizens will fall for.
• He is well informed about the vicissitudes of human nature, the lessons of history, the role of ideas, and the economics of the marketplace.
• The statesman is a truth-seeker, which means he is more likely to do what’s right than what may be politically popular at the moment.
• You know where he stands because he says what he means and means what he says.
• He elevates public discussion because he knows what he’s talking about.
• He does not engage in class warfare or in other divisive or partisan tactics that pull people apart.
• He does not cynically buy votes with the money his taxes take from others, and
• He may even judge his success in office as much by how many laws he repealed or vetoed as by how many he passed.

10 Basic Libertarian Principles

Based on the reading guide provided by Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal, I came up with my own understanding of libertarian principles. I intentionally removed from my list articles that are too difficult for me. My purpose for coming up with my own list is to use it as a reference for my teaching assignment.

I am aware that mastering the principles in the list does not make one a specialist in free market. The basic goal is to supply with necessary framework for an intelligent understanding of free market ideas. In case any aspiring libertarian attains to the level of ability to distinguish among confusing terms used under the banner of “free market” and “libertarian,” then I can say that such a person achieves an end far greater than the original goal.

Each of these principles is expressed in a form of a summary statement or paragraph capturing the central idea of a corresponding article written by a reputable Austrian economist. Any mistake in interpretation is the responsibility of the blogger and if any reader is not satisfied with it, I suggest reading the source articles directly to come up with his own understanding.

Principle # 1 – A libertarian has fourfold tasks to fulfill, namely: to specialize knowledge focusing on concrete issues; not to expect from giant corporations for assistance in his fight for liberty; to focus on few basic libertarian principles in order to win his battle for freedom; and to demand honest money from the government.

Principle # 2 – A libertarian sees the serious threat posts against free market economy by fascist policy, which existence is proven by historical facts and present-day evidences

Principle # 3 – A libertarian believes that for free market economy to grow and flourish; it needs an intellectual atmosphere and social order friendly to it

Principle # 4 – Though a libertarian hopes for public opinion to accept a sound economic theory; he should learn to accept that the public may not, for a time; this is due to the absence of empirical evidence because of its nature that can be verified by reason alone.

Principle # 5 – A libertarian foresees that the government act of socializing public health will result into corruption and poor service due to absence of freedom in economic activity.

Principle # 6 – A libertarian believes that the only rational explanation for the“booms” and “busts” of business is due to government intervention and the creation of central banking.

Principle # 7 – A libertarian believes that Keynesian and Hitlerian economic policies are basically the same and their modern-day equivalent in capitalist and democratic countries are evident through governments’ central planning.

Principle # 8 – A libertarian equipped with Austrian economic perspective has the ability to see things and events in our society that most people do not see. Everything is now seen from a new perspective. The invisible hand of socialist states becomes evident. Dominant social themes are used to justify the expansion of the government’s power.

Principle # 9 – A libertarian discerns the true color of a socialist state. Socialism’s failure as an economic system causes it to hide behind an environmental cause for it to continue its suppression of the free market.

Principle # 10 – A libertarian understands socialism’s distortion of the concept of human equality to destroy the power of free market economy. Free market is blamed as the primary obstacle to the optimal development of the common man. The final result of such a trend is a return to a primitive social order where superior men will no longer serve the common men, but dominate them; not unless the rising generation will experience a new enlightenment that will prepare the way for a kind of social order where true free market economy has the freedom to grow and flourish. Only in such a society that an average man can be fully developed; a society where differences and inequality among men are accepted as basic parts of reality.