Understanding the Libertarian Mind
by Michael Prowse

The other evening I attended a meeting of the Vienna Coffee Club [The Future of Freedom Foundation's supper club]— that is Vienna in the state of Virginia. The guest of honour, Mrs. Bettina Greaves, spoke about Ludwig von Mises, the late "Austrian" economist whose work she has lovingly catalogued. I thought how strange it was that Mises, an economist almost unknown in his native Austria, remains a source of inspiration for many U.S. libertarians.

I suppose Americans, for historical reasons, are naturally more sympathetic to free-market ideas than Europeans. The newly-formed Vienna Coffee Club is typical of scores of discussion groups and think-tanks scattered across the U.S. What they share is a dislike of government and a burning commitment to economic and personal liberty. Some, such as the Cato Institute in Washington DC, exert considerable influence.

Cynics tend to dismiss libertarians as either cranks or rightwing reactionaries. They say the high-flown rhetoric about "freedom" is a smoke screen. Rich entrepreneurs support such groups, the argument runs, for selfish reasons: to garner political support for lower taxes, a policy from which they stand to benefit.

Perhaps some backers of libertarian groups do have dubious motives. But this is not an argument against libertarianism: Adam Smith noted, self-serving behavior often promotes public welfare more effectively than altruism. Motives in any case have no bearing on the validity of political arguments. While libertarians sometimes welcome support from traditional right-wingers, the philosophy espoused by true believers would make most conservatives cringe.

Libertarians believe in one fundamental principle: individuals should be free to pursue their own goals unmolested provided they do not harm the person or property of others. All the consenting acts between adults that do not damage third parties should be permitted. Libertarians are thus highly critical of conservatives for disregarding civil and personal liberties and for imposing their moral codes on the entire community.

They reject military conscription (even in wartime) as a wholly unacceptable infringement of personal liberty; they oppose all forms of censorship, including restrictions on pornography; and they strongly advocate equal legal treatment of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, race or gender. A libertarian could have no principled objection to homosexual marriage, or to adult prostitution, which is a service in obvious demand.

In these respects libertarians are firmly "left of centre". But they part company with social democrats on economics. They do not believe personal and economic freedoms can be disentangled. As Mr. Murray Rothbard, a prominent American libertarian, has often argued, civil liberties are rooted in economic freedoms. Why? Because we cannot do anything without control of physical objects and ultimately, we cannot control what we do not own. Liberty is thus a myth unless individuals can own and transfer assets without interference.

The axiom that interactions between people should not be interfered with unless they damage third parties thus logically extends from free speech and sexual conduct to the exchange of goods and services. Yet when government imposes taxes or regulations, it forcibly interferes with these voluntary economic exchanges. Taxation, for example, means that employees often receive two thirds or less of the monetary value of their output. Extreme libertarians, such as Rothbard, reject all taxation as "theft"; moderate libertarians accept the need for some taxation, but oppose progressive taxes — proportionately higher taxes on the wealthy.

Western-style democracy (one person one vote) is often regarded as an automatic guarantee of personal freedom. Libertarians agree that the alternatives are worse, but they regard government of any sort as potentially despotic. The problem is that the right to vote once every few years gives the individual little control over the actions of government. It exerts no effective restraint on the capricious will of the majority, which is often strongly influenced by special interest groups.

Libertarians fear individual rights are being crushed even in such supposedly individualistic societies as the U.S. For a catalogue of recent abuses, see Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St Martin's Press, New York), a new book by libertarian author James Bovard. He worries about tax regulations that are forcing the self-employed into bankruptcy, "asset forfeiture" laws that permit officials to seize property almost at will, security forces which search homes and persons merely on suspicion of drug abuse, and a mind boggling array of arbitrary rules stemming from some 1,200 separate federal programmes.

Bovard complains that most Americans have a romantic view of government: they judge politicians not by their record but, naively, by what they say they will do for voters. He favours rolling back government to its 1910 boundaries — before income tax.

Since libertarians believe in low, flat taxes and a minimal government (for such functions as defence and law and order), they are often perceived as "uncaring". This is somewhat unfair. People's ethics are best judged by their private actions — not by their politics. The proportion of income that individuals freely give to charity is surely a far better gauge of their sympathy for their less fortunate fellows than the shrillness of their calls for higher taxes on the rich and more public spending, much of which only induces dependency in recipients thus further eroding their life chances. The libertarian voice deserves to be heard.

© Financial Times. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.