“Fiscally conservative and socially really don’t give a damn,” stated Gary Johnson in an interview with MSNBC in late June. “As long as you don’t force me into believing what it is you believe. Let people have choices in life.”
After months and months of criticism, Johnson finally buckled. He modified his long-time slogan “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” to make room for social conservatives who might consider libertarianism if it meant retaining their social values in a personal sense.
...Unfortunately, this new version is problematic as well. It does not properly describe libertarianism and is a poor way to market the liberty movement.
This begs the question of "what is a libertarian?" Brett gives us a little more definition:
The problems with calling libertarians “socially liberal” are quite manifest to those who are knowledgeable about the liberty movement. For one, social conservatives are prevalent. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and Andrew Napolitano are all social conservatives but are still libertarian because they do not believe in forcing their views on others. Furthermore, a number of positions typically deemed “socially liberal” are in fact not libertarian, such as prohibiting business discrimination.
Meanwhile, the problems with calling libertarians “fiscally conservative” may not be so obvious at first glance. After all, there is not a plethora of individuals in the movement calling themselves “fiscally liberal.”
Nevertheless, just like the “socially liberal” label, “fiscally conservative” is an inaccurate descriptor. It’s true that conservatives want to reduce taxes and cut government spending and debt. But how many want to completely eliminate the income tax? How many want to drastically cut spending? How many want to end the Federal Reserve and legalize competing currencies? Libertarians have some disagreements on the degree to which they’d do such things, but even the moderates are far and away from typical...fiscal conservatives.
...Further problematic is the fact that many fiscal conservatives are concerned more about eliminating the debt than reducing taxes.
I disagree with Brett's statement about fiscal conservatives who are only interested in eliminating the debt. People like that may exist, but I haven't met them. Even if it did exist, the problem with this political belief is that it doesn't explain how to prevent the debt from being re-created in the future.
Anyway, later on, Brett gives us a handy dandy little chart to demonstrate libertarianism on the political spectrum:
Anyway, later on, Brett gives us a handy dandy little chart to demonstrate libertarianism on the political spectrum:
Overall, Brett does a good job of defining libertarianism, although I have to take exception to his chart. Where he labels it "libertarian" at the top, that would actually be "anarchy", since anarchy is the true opposition to "authoritarian". Libertarian would be slightly lower than anarchy on the chart.
There are anarchists within the Libertarian Party. While I respect their views, I don't adhere to them. Anarchy is preferable to authoritarian forms of government, but it isn't the best choice. Anarchism provides no protection for freedom, which is what the true libertarian seeks.
Fiscal anarchy provides no means for funding a government. A true libertarian accepts (begrudgingly) the need for a government. This is where the libertarian and the fiscal conservative's goals align.
A "fiscal conservative" is one who wants a minimal, but still existent treasury, which is necessary for the government to protect our freedoms (i.e. social liberties). Within a libertarian framework, it remains to be seen how we would accomplish this, although I would recommend a consumption tax, such as the FairTax.
An income tax is, by it's nature, an authoritarian construct, because it allows for control over the workers in a society. In truth, both the Republicans and Democrats would actually appear closer to the authoritarian side of the chart above because of their willingness to use government force to steal money from the people via income taxation.
The beauty of the FairTax in comparison to the income tax is that it preserves an individual's right to retain (read: save) the fruits of their labor. However, when a person goes to spend money, they are clearly not retaining anything. In fact, they are taking advantage of the free market, which is protected by the government. A tax on the free market is a reasonable thing: If we expect exchanges to be fair, is it unfair to ask people to pay for the protections we provide as a collective society?
In summary, Johnson's description of libertarians as "fiscally conservative" is apt for the most part. My apologies to the fiscal anarchists in the Libertarian Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment