Any libertarian who has spent enough time playing in the sandbox that is political argument, whether vocal, written or on the Internet, has had to deal with a box full of pat arguments, challenges, refutations and dismissals of libertarian philosophy. One of these is often expressed as “why are there no libertarian nations,” or “it’s never worked in the real world,” or “it’s never been tried before” It isn’t the most popular dismissal, but it is one of the most persistent. Often, I encounter it when someone’s tired of arguing with me (understandable – I’m a bit… persistent) and wants to atom-bomb the discussion into oblivion, or when someone’s so ill-informed of what libertarianism actually is that he’s filled the void in his knowledge with misinformation and conjecture.
If the national organization of the world were to start from scratch, today, with knowledge of all the history that has preceded, and people could move about and organize themselves freely, there would be libertarian nations and societies – there is certainly enough interest for them to arise. But, it hasn’t and it won’t. All the habitable lands of the earth are already claimed by nations, and overwhelmingly those nations staked those lands out by force. Nations are persistent, borders rarely move without some sort of violence, and power, once acquired and established, is rarely ceded freely. New political systems are usually imposed from within, either incrementally or via violent revolution. Given the difficulty that’s involved in those impositions, they invariably involve some compromises, some failure to achieve the ideal.
Consider communism, both as a political system and as a historical example. Communism didn’t exist as an operating political system a century ago. It was implemented in various forms in the 20th century, with universally disastrous results. Tens of millions dead, billions impoverished, terrible oppression, individual freedom squashed – the various forms of communism have done enormous harm to humanity. Despite all this, communism still has its defenders and advocates. They present their defense as “it’s never been done properly,” an argument that’s the opposite of the challenge lobbed at libertarianism in that the premise that communism hasn’t been implemented in its pure form is presented as a justification for trying it. How someone can think this is beyond me – it’s as if we’re to expect to see results from steadily increasing the fidelity to the pure form as bad, bad, bad, bad… GOOD! As if all the failures, all the flaws, all the perverse incentives that created the horrors of 20th century collectivism are the result of leaving bits of non-collectivism in the mix rather than the product of that collectivism itself. This can only derive, I believe, from stubborn refusal to consider that history is sufficient proof that the concept itself is bad and from a desire to be right despite the facts instead of having been proven wrong by the facts. And, before some leap at the specificity of the concept of “communism,” we can substitute socialism, fascism, or whatever other form of collectivism/statism one is fond of and get the same answer.
Contrast this with liberty. The greatest advances of humanity in history are associated with individual liberty and free markets, not collectivism. The industrial revolution was rooted in free markets. The strongest and most successful economies of the world are those more aligned with freedom. Nations that move towards liberty and away from statism witness economic booms. The former Soviet republics on the Baltic Sea that embraced capitalism enjoyed explosive economic growth growth. China’s growing economic might is a result of moving away from communism. More liberty = more good. Yet, are we to believe that continuing to move in that direction will push us over some sort of cliff? Will things go good, good, good, good… BAD! if our society strives ever more towards libertarianism? It’s illogical and counterfactual.
History is awash in good ideas that “were never tried before.” One of the greatest examples is this nation. At the time of its founding, Europe was a continent of monarchies and nobility, with heredity playing a significant role in governance and “representation” unequal-to-nonexistent. The American Experiment and its concept of limited government was pretty radical, yet it proved enormously successful and has been a model that many other nations emulated. The Magna Carta didn’t exist until it did. Women’s suffrage didn’t exist until it did.
Go beyond political systems, to the broader sense of “it’s never been tried before.” This statement is true for every innovation and invention in the history of the world, and in that context the phrase becomes laughable. Sailing west to India, moveable type, horseless carriages, penicillin, the cotton gin… pick an invention, an idea, a creation, and you’ll have something that wasn’t tried before.
Of course, many things that weren’t tried before turned out to be bad ideas. Prohibition is one. Communism/socialism/fascism is another. Not having been tried before is neither a guarantee of success nor one of failure. But, as I noted just above, liberty HAS been tried and IS in place today, and greater liberty produces better outcomes. Besides, libertarianism is evident all around us, every day. Any peaceful and mutually agreed-upon interaction between individuals is libertarian in nature. We all experience it constantly, we simply don’t give it a name.
Another element of the “it’s never been tried before” argument is the illogical, unfair and tendentious comparison of a fully libertarian nation or society with existing ones, wherein the former is presumed to somehow come to be in pure, perfect form while the latter remain imperfect amalgams of different and conflicting governing principles. How does anyone with half a brain presume that electing a libertarian-leaning politician or two or ten will somehow magically transform this nation instantly into libertarian utopia? Change takes time, change is incremental, undoing what exists is very difficult, and there will ALWAYS be ideas, people and constituencies at odds with each other. There never will be a purely libertarian society, not in our lifetimes or the next. Nor will there be a purely communist or a purely socialist one. No, the criticism is little more than a cheap straw man.
However, knowing we can never achieve a purely libertarian society doesn’t suggest we don’t strive for it. In pursuing liberty, we experience improvements and benefits, and even if we never get to the final purity (presuming we could even define that) we benefit from moving society in that direction. This is the truth that statists and anti-libertarians don’t want to contemplate. They’d rather come up with weak-sauce dismissals than consider that relinquishing control over others might actually benefit those others. And themselves, and society as a whole.
For many who are well-invested in politics, libertarianism is a wild card. For liberals, its disassociation of economic conservatism from social conservatism makes it harder to leverage the social-conservative issues with which many younger voters disagree to keep those younger voters in the fold and away from the other party. For conservatives, it raises the fear that the Republican Party might be altered from within to embrace certain long-held but somewhat-abandoned positions and to soften or reverse others. For both, it’s upsetting to the status-quo, the balance scale that tips back and forth ever so slightly to put retreads of the same old Democrats or the same old Republicans in power. It also represents a third path for many who don’t like the entirety of one or the other party’s platform. In short, it’s a new type of threat, and it has pushed many outside their comfort zones. In doing so, it has prompted harsh and sometimes hysterical reactions, as those vested in perpetuating the status quo cast about for ways to fend off this growing threat.
“It’s never been tried before” is meant to suggest that liberty is an alien concept, that libertarianism is so weird, so radical and so alien that anyone who advocates it is nuts. Its corollary, “there are no examples of libertarian societies,” is intended to work the same way. The argument is fear-mongering, intended to invoke an emotional response rather than encourage critical rational thought. Yet, the principles of liberty have been bedrock of this nation for over two centuries, meaning that anyone born here grew up steeped in them. Liberty isn’t a radical or alien idea, it’s the principle that people live and invoke every day without thought, without fear, without trepidation. If someone finds fault with some of the principles of libertarianism or some of the policy proposals that those who lean libertarian advocate, the proper response would be to challenge the principles or proposals factually and directly. They should be subject to scrutiny, just as all other philosophies and policy ideas should be. Any idea worth trying should be able to stand up to questions and challenges. Dismissals, however, are the refuge of scoundrels and those unable or unwilling to mount legitimate challenges.
Liberty HAS been tried before, all over the world. It is the great countervailing force to tyranny, and has motivated countless throughout history to fight against statism and statists. Why would anyone who understands this think that more liberty would be bad?
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters