LIBERTARIANISM
What is libertarianism? Caution is needed when using the term libertarianism since the term
libertarianism has been used and it is used to denominate many different political philosophies.
They evocate to the maximization of the individual liberties and minimization of the state (in some
cases the abolition of the state), but they can differ essentially in the concept of property rights (from
anti-property rights theories to pro-property rights theories) and the role of the state (from openly
anarchies theories to the minimal states theories).
In order to understand this we can look at the so called “Nolan chart” (1) which situates
libertarianism in a wider spectrum of political thoughts. This chart has been popularized by the
American libertarian politician David Nolan who considers the upper right corner as the optimal point
in the chart.
Kymlicka makes a clear distinction between neo-conservatives and libertarians. (pag.155)
Libertarianism can be understood as a basic principle or as a derivative one. For example, one might
defend libertarianism on the basis of rule utilitarianism (Narveson 1988).Other authors will argue
that not everyone who favours free market is a libertarian (Kymlicka)
We should focus on libertarianism as a basic principle, having in mind that libertarians’ philosophers
do not have identical opinions in all respects (see Bojer, pag.51). Some prominent libertarian
philosophers are Milton Friedman, Friederick Von Hayer, Murray Newton Rothbard, one of the most
influential contemporary work is Nozick (1974).
1
1)Nolan, David: “Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" , 1971
2) Milton Fiedman,The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970
3) M Friedman and R Friedman, Free to Choose (1980)
Libertarianism and distributive Justice
A key concept for libertarians is that free market is a just and fair system of distribution of
resources. The assumption is that the free market ensures equality of reward or ‘just deserts’, in the
sense that individuals get out of the market system what they freely choose to put into it. What it is
mean by “just deserts” for a libertarian? , different answers had been given. Milton Friedman and
Rose Friedman answered to that question, saying that “just deserts” is both remuneration in
proportion to ‘the price a person receives for the services of his resources’ and in proportion to how
‘hard’ they work(3). On other occasions, libertarians shift their allegiance to reward in proportion to
the actual value of the goods produced or services offered; the more good things or the better things
you produce, the greater the reward you deserve.
Milton Friedman insisted on the view that “free market” principles were a better guarantor
of an expanding economy and “distributive justice.” Other as Hayek argues that the very concept of
distributive justice is meaningless.(See, Bojer s.51).
If in the long run it means that a group will live under poverty, it will be outweighed by the
wealth of the majority (Bojer, pag.51). None has a responsibility over the suffering of that group, he
denied even business responsibility, in his own words: ….What does it mean to say that “business”
has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. (2) If the corporate executive would be
spending someone else’s money for a general social interest, then he will taxiing people, and he has
not the right to do so.
At the same time, Hayek and Friedman are in favor of some kind of economic safety net such
as a minimum guaranteed in come (Bojer, s.51)
Milton Friedman proposed “the negative income tax” in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” to
replace the “welfare system”. A negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a progressive income tax
system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the
government instead of paying taxes to the government.
For some libertarians as Nozicks and Murray, taxation is tantanamous with slavery. As Nozick
says in: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 169: "taxation of earnings from
labor is on a par with forced labor." Similarly, Rothbard argues that "the entire system of taxation is a
form of involuntary servitude ... Part of the essence of slavery, after all, is being forced to work for
someone at little or no pay" (For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto).
Economic freedom is essential in a free society, in Friedman words”We’ve talked about
economic and political freedom as if they were wholly separate things, which they are not.”
(Friedman, 2002) In the so called Hayek-Friedman Hypothesis, politically free societies must be
economically free, it’s sad that it does not say that economically free societies must be politically free.
2
1)Nolan, David: “Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" , 1971
2) Milton Fiedman,The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970
3) M Friedman and R Friedman, Free to Choose (1980)
Nozicks theory
Nozick, n. (from nostrum + physick) Political snake oil, a patent medicine, esp. a cathartic or
purgative. "Waste not logick, not yet strong physick, on the Leviathan; serve it nozick, and stand
back." - Hobbes
Daniel Dennett, The Philosophical Lexicon
Nozick is one the most influential libertarians, and he use an intellectual experimentto explain his
theory. He imagines a state of nature where men are free an independent of each other. The hunter
will choose to give up some freedom in order to get protection against robbery and murder (for this
see Bojer). He will not give up all his freedom, in particular he will insist in the right to posses and
dispose of his own prey.The solitary hunter go for a minimal state.
“The Entitlement theory” is Nozicks theory of a just distribution. It can be exposed as 3 main
principles (as done in Bojer and Kymlicka).
1. A principle of transfer (if it is just acquired, it can be just tranfered)
2. A principle of just adquisition. (A person who acuired in accordance with the principle of
justice in tranfer is entitled to that holding)
3. A principle of rectification of injustice. ( No one is entitled to a holdning except by application
of 1 and 2)
It is a procedural theory of justice. If the procedure is just, the result is just.
As exposed in Kymlicka, if acurrent people’s holdings are justly acquired, then the formula for a just
distribution is “From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen”( Nozick 1974:160 in Kymlicka
1990:97).
Taxations against some people will goes against this principle.
How to legitimate accquisiton?
Nozicks adopt the so called “Lockean Proviso” as a test of legitimate accquisition:
1. People own themselves
2. The world is initially unowned
3. You can acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world, if you do not
worse the condition of others.
4. It is relatively easy to acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world.
Therefore:
3
1)Nolan, David: “Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" , 1971
2) Milton Fiedman,The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970
3) M Friedman and R Friedman, Free to Choose (1980)
5. Once people have appropriated private property, a free market in capital and labor is
morally required
For Nozicks only unrestricted capitalism recognizes selfownership and property rights must be as
unrestricted as possible.
Nozick does not accept utilitarianism because the rights of every individual must be respected,
you can not sacrifice the rights of one person for the benefits of others. If they are inequalities is
just because people has different talents, you can not redistribute goods to them that are
entitled to others. He accepts taxation only if it is to raise revenues for maintaining the
institutions needed to protect the system of free exchange, as for exemple, police, justice
system, etc(Kymlicka)
Nozick have been critized by not having a substantial argument to support his theory of
entitlement (Nagel : 1981). At kymlicka we see that this critic is not relevant. Nozick presents two
arguments for its theory:
1. The Intuitive argument (Kymlicka use the Wilt Chamberlain example): We will accept an
initial distribution wich we feel is legitimate. And intuitively we will prefer his principle of
tranfer. But Why?
If there are two distributions D1 and D2, and D1 is preferred. And we follow a moral principle
that is accepted for everyone (P) in this case the principle of selfownership and according to
a rule based in this moral principle we transfer from one D1 to d2, and then D2 is just.
2. The Philosophical argument: self ownership argument
In order to defence libertarianism, must exist a deeper principle to which we are strongly
committed to.
For Nozick this principle is selfwonership: it is an interpretation of the principle of treating
people as “ends in themselves”. It is an interpretation of Kantscategorical
imperative.According to Nozick, the indivisual rights of each person must not be sacrified or
used for the achievement of other ends.
CRITICS TO NOZICKS THEORY
Development cannot really be so centered only on those in power.
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom
Intuitively I ask myself, why should we accept economic inequality between people?
1. KYMLICKA: He ignores dealing fearly with unequal circumstances. Nozicks accept this
objection but he refers to a collision of rights to maintain his arguments.
Its seems that property right is alfa and omega in Nozicks theory, what about if this rights is in in
collision with the right to live, the possibilities to live disminish if you not have food and shelter
and at the end of the day,Does not every citizen count?
4
1)Nolan, David: “Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" , 1971
2) Milton Fiedman,The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970
3) M Friedman and R Friedman, Free to Choose (1980)
2. KYMLICKA: In Nozicks libertarian regime only some people can have selfdetermination. You
can not garanty each person substantive control over her/his life.Libertarianism not only
restricts self determination of the propertyless worker, it makes her/him a resource for
other. It is not in accordance with Kant principles.
Kymlicka consider that liberal redistribution give real control to people over their lives.
Selfownership is not neccesarily yield with absolute property rights. It is compatible with
other regimes. It can be interpreted as a “more adequate conception of equality”, and the
free selection of a regime will lead us to a liberal view of justice.
3. KYMLICKA: Legitimacy of the rights in the just distribution: You can not intuitively accept that
D2 is just, if you preffer another set of moral principle and rules. Then D1 can only be
“endowment absolute rights”. But whether people have absolute rights over their shares is
what is in question?
4. COHEN: The initial acquisition: It is in most cases is by force. Then there is no moral reason
why government should not confiscate and redistribute wealth.
How is property given? By restraining liberty; that is, by taking it away so far as necessary
for the purpose. How is your house made yours? By debarring every one else from the
liberty of entering it without your leave.
Jeremy Bentham, "Anarchical Fallacies"
5. Ben / Amy exemple in Kymlica: Ben does not need to give concent to Amys’ appropriation. So
does not Ben has a selfownership right as well
Conclusion
I think that there is a contradiction in the argument of Nozick, if selfownership is the base of
his defence of the just distribution according to libertarianism, then he can not argue that economic
inequality is a result that we have to accept. Poverty enable people to have completely
selfdetermination, in this sense, if you have not completely selfdetermination how can you exercise
your right of selfownership. I fully agree with the critique at Kymlicka.
In principle, libertarianism is based on the principle of freedom, an a propertyless individual
has a lack of freedom.It is a contradition.
...simple statements of libertarian principle taken literally can be used to prove conclusions that
nobody, libertarian or otherwise, is willing to accept. If the principle is softened enough to avoid
such conclusions, its implications become far less clear. It is only by being careful to restrict the
application of our principles to easy cases that we can make them seem at the same time simple
and true.
David Friedman, "The Machinery Of Freedom", Chapter 41.
5
1)Nolan, David: “Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" , 1971
2) Milton Fiedman,The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, 1970
3) M Friedman and R Friedman, Free to Choose (1980)