Libertarianism is pretty commonly accepted by most people today, in that most people do not believe in hindering a person's beliefs or their acting upon them, so long as they harm nobody else's ability to do the same. And for this reason, libertarianism is treated as a special sort of ideology, in that is should supposedly be compatible, at least concerning the beliefs of individuals, with other ideologies.
However, when in its purest form, libertarianism for all practical purposes loses its status as an ideology to protect all others, and instead just becomes another one of the bunch which is forced on people; just like communism, nationalism, Christianity, Islam, fascism, or anything else. Why is this? Well, I think the idea of libertarianism as giving individual freedom is flawed for three reasons.
Firstly, libertarianism makes a lot of assumptions about human nature and the rights that follow it. In many ways it is a bastardised form of the ideologies of the likes of John Locke and those he influenced who carried on the tradition off into various branches. One of the biggest assumptions it makes is that people are rational agents capable of willing whatever they please (without of course always being able to act upon it). And this the root belief from which we get all the various human rights etc. However, the underlying assumption is a very bold one to make. What if someone believed that people are born depraved and unable to do any good? Lunacy! And this isn't of course just a religious thing, I think it is quite difficult to defend free will from a purely scientific point of view. And yet, most people believe that the underlying assumption of libertarianism is correct, and so it is in effect no different from other ideologies built on what are unfounded assumptions, and all the resulting beliefs of this assumption are then formed into a system to which people are forced to comply.
Secondly, we are by nature a social species, and our individualism has always been something which has fitted into the framework of society. The only way this could be avoided is to remove people from society, which would in itself violate their liberty. People simply don't want to be left alone with their beliefs, they want to share them with other people, and shape their role in society. Pure libertarianism allows individual freedom, but completely shackles society to its chains. And yet, almost all the ideologies which people hold to are concerned with society as a whole. A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence. The private sphere is free, but that abstract concept of society (something dear to the individual) is strictly confined.
Thirdly, we are largely a product of our upbringings, and the ideas we were exposed to in our younger years. Of course, on the face of it you could say this is not true and point to some extreme in examples. Heck, I wasn't raised a Christian, but look at me now. However, I reckon, looking back on my life, I can see just how all the little things, a very complicated network of ideas and experiences etc, came together in unpredictable ways leading me to where I am now. In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life. All this is of course presuming children are not rational, free agents, which I would think most libertarians agree with (otherwise stop complaining about those brainwashed from birth religous people). And so, libertarianism denies children from exposure to any belief system (as far as this is even possible), leading to adults who have no belief system. The sad thing is, when they start with no values as an adult, it is in reality just as difficult for them to gain them as it is for them to change them if they had been brought up in a more ideological environment. Want proof, just look at society now.
Therefore, I think we should stop seeing libertarianism as the cure to all the world's problems. Sadly, these problems are a product of human nature, and they won't disappear until our human nature's are completely suppressed from having any impact on society (which is therefore what libertarianism must aim to do, though it claims otherwise). And so, what role should libertarianism, or individual freedom have? Well, it has practical uses. When applied sensibly it can help to maintain the market place of ideas. Of course, you can see my own assumptions in this idea as well, because it assumes that it is healthy for humanity as a whole to have a market place of ideas, and that the best of truthful ideas will be able to win the hearts of people - a very great assumption this is in fact.
Of course, I am playing somewhat of a devils advocate here. I do believe that individual freedom is generally speaking a good thing, probably moresoe than most people. However, I get a bit annoyed when libertarians who generally lack other values treat their own ideology as being special. It is not, it is a belief system based on several very great assumptions, that is then effectively forced onto society above all other belief systems. It takes the beliefs of some individuals, and constructs a framework for society around them, and as such is no more inherently 'liberating' than Wahibism. I am not arguing against libertarianism, I just want people to admit to it being what it is.
Bookmarks