By The American Contemporary
Libertarianism is a broad descriptive with a wide range of potential definitions, depending mostly on the circumstances it is used and the individual asked. Though in its most basic sense, libertarianism is a philosophy which prioritizes the rights of the individual over the needs of the state. As a matter of fact, the American Heritage Dictionary defines libertarian as: 1) One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state, and 2) One who believes in free will. From a political standpoint, most people in America would instantly think about the libertarian party of the United States, one of the most popular third party political groups to date. While the specific policies of the libertarian party are somewhat hard to define, they are generally focused on limiting (or abolishing in extreme cases) taxation, reducing government regulation, size, and power, enabling free-market economics, and empowering individuals and their rights. Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, most acknowledge the libertarian ideal as valid and noble in spirit, even if they may view policies as flawed or errant.
But interestingly, the philosophy at the opposing end of the spectrum does not frequently receive consideration in the same manner. The opposite of libertarianism, frequently called authoritarianism, is often vilified in both sphere of politics as well as education. The same dictionary used above defines authoritarianism as: 1) Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime, and
2) Tending to tell other people what to do in a peremptory or arrogant manner (see synonyms at dictatorial). Even here, we notice the language of authoritarianism is largely hostile and adversarial, invoking dictatorial language and even defining policies as arrogant. Of course, this can most certainly be true, and history has shown states using extreme authoritarianism to cause the rise of dictators, despots, and abuses of leadership. But this is in the most extreme circumstances, and it seems unfair to neglect the extreme end of libertarianism, which of course is anarchy.
But why should definitions matter, you may be asking? Am I advocating for one policy over the other? Am I attempting to justify authoritarianism or consolidation of power? To the latter two questions, I say unequivocally, no. Generally, I would believe the principals of fundamentalism more closely align themselves with libertarianism opposed to authoritarianism (at least on average). But to answer the first question, the purpose of addressing these issues is to create discourse in the necessary powers of government, and understanding where powers must be sacrificed, and where they must be secured.
We have discussed in a previous essay the nature of fundamentalism as it applies to a state and its foundation. In short, I would propose that a state born on foundational principals outlined at its formation may only exist in stability so long as the mission and rights of the people/state remain mostly intact from the foundation, as described in the initial constitutions/agreements. If a people or a state change their wants/desires beyond the scope of what is guaranteed, the result is instability, and must result in either the collapse of a state and the formation of new nation-sates with new ideals, or the restructuring of established states around new common interests of the people.
Much like policy, the powers of the state and the people are established at the founding of the country. Excessive variation to this power dynamic could and likely would result in similar destabilization. Yet whether out of fear of implementation should the idea catch on or out of disdain for a loss of personal rights (neither of which is an invalid concern), there is little discussion on when authority is required in the form of sacrificed rights or privileges. While I would argue that a majority of cases, at least in the case of the United States which was founded on principals of individuals freedoms and thus would find most stability around these virtues, only through exploring each extreme can we better understand the optimal path forward from a policy making perspective.
Of course I would remiss to neglect the frequent discussions regarding security, and the various discussions which exist around things such as border security, air travel, travel bans, and gun laws. All of these debates often boil down to a question of convenience or security as opposed to individual rights. Interestingly, the two major American political parties (being the Democratic Party and the GOP) often flip on the side they are arguing, depending on the circumstances. For example, GOP members would advocate for gun rights on average, whereas democrats often seek restrictions citing safety. On the flip side, republicans are more likely to seek travel bans from destabilized states and states with high rates of terrorism citing safety concerns, while democrats would say this is discriminatory against innocent people and prevents individual freedom of travel. When these issues arise however, they are often had in a reactionary context, meaning that something has happened (such as a shooting, God forbid) which has brought attention to the issue at a regional or national level. While there are valid discussions to be had in these contexts, often these reactions are short-sighted and only seek to placate the people of the country in the short term. These discussions provide a sense of security, while also rousing the voting population to take action, associate said action with a political figure, and respond accordingly on election day. True long-term policy change, as well as more abstract political philosophy only can happen when these issues are considered intently, in a long-term context.
So, where does that us on the issue of authoritarianism vs libertarianism? Is one truly better? Well, taking personal opinion out of consideration for a moment (at least as much as I am able, though bias will always seep through), the answer is no, there is no inherently better system from a governmental perspective. There have been benevolent kings, and there have been wicked elected officials. What it often comes down to is whether the leaders of the state are acting with the best interest of the people/state in mind, as opposed to their own interests and desires. A king who acts in the best interest of the people, despite controlling the resources and the policy choices unilaterally, would in theory produce a similar result as an equally benevolent congress in a republic. But when individual desire creep in, and the king starts to spend money on vanity projects, or elected officials begin to accept bribes and kickbacks for their vote, corruption and malevolence beings to deteriorate and degrade the state.
Extreme ends of the spectrum result in circumstances were individuals have greater powers and incentives to act selfishly. For example, a despot ruling with absolute authority is incentivized to only care for their own position, and has the power to make anything happen to accomplish that. Similarly, in an anarchic state, without any regulation, abuses of the most powerful, the wealthiest, or the most intelligent are almost guaranteed, for there are no repercussions to poor behavior. Additionally, in anarchy, because there are no central authorities, there are no ramifications for actions taken which may not directly impact a single person, but rather the community at large, such as pollution of water resources via dumping. Thus, we can conclude that the truth of the matter is somewhere between the two extremes, a balance of authority and control of power, as well as systems which protect and empower the individual.
In terms of America, the breadth of policies and issues would be enough to fill several books, and would be beyond this particular essay. However, we can explore authoritarianism vs libertarianism briefly in a broad context, from a fundamental perspective. As we are seeking to establish long-term stability, we can conclude that the foundational documents and policies of the state should be the primary guiding principles of power distribution. This, at least federally, the state should have control over matters such as minting and currency control, the power to move and regulate the military, as well as declare war, and the power to regulate the economy. Similarly, I would make the argument that states and the federal governments should, at times, prioritize the well-being of the state as an entity over the individual if necessary, without of course impacting the voting powers and voice of the people as given in the House. For example, I would say that senators should adhere to their original purpose, which was being the voice of the state, rather than a second voice of the people which was originally the purpose of the house. This separation of interests helps ensure that policies are being enacted which do not infringe upon the will of the people, but do not become so extreme that enforcement of policy is no longer possible.
But, as dictated in the bill of rights (the 10th amendment), any specific power not given to the federal government must be given to the state, the local authorities, or the people, ideally in a pyramid structure with the most rights being retained by the individual. Not only would this keep decision making in line with original intend of the state, but it also ensures personal liberties are met while keeping government size small and easily controllable. It also facilitates speed and reduces cost and bloat.
These are of course quickly mentioned concepts which do not give the issues fair consideration beyond a general statement, but it conveys the overall point of the essay, which is policy is not made through reaction or ridged adherence to extreme ends of the spectrum. Vilification of political theories does little to advance true understanding and knowledge. Only through discussions such as this can we truly hope to advance political thought. The true answers are hard to come by, but if a population is scared to look for them, they will remain forever illusive.