Big debates are often inspired by simple and fundamental questions.
What is the purpose of government? It's a simple question that liberals and conservatives answer in different ways. Libertarians, however, as a group, have the most radical, simplistic and generally unappealing answer of all — they see virtually no role for government, some even comparing it to a criminal enterprise.
To understand how libertarianism differs from other political philosophies, without delving into too much nuance and detail, here's a brief synopsis. Libertarianism prioritizes individual rights, property rights and extreme laissez-faire capitalism above all else.
Liberalism acknowledges such rights, and the benefit of a free market, but balances these interests with the public good and economic fairness. Modern conservatism, especially as practiced by President George W. Bush and Rep. Tom Delay, seems principally concerned with the rights of those in power (themselves), the interests of their powerful corporate benefactors and the mega-wealthy getting richer at the expense of the rest of society.
Libertarians have an almost religious belief that free markets define what's best and loathe all forms of government interference. They tend to support minimal taxation, aimed solely at funding public institutions that protect property rights and individual liberty (military, police, courts) and instinctively see smaller government as the solution to nearly every problem.
Liberals also appreciate the power of free-market capitalism, but only when it's working for the public good. Corporations exist to make profits and ensure value on investment for shareholders. The role of government, however, is to ensure that private interests never benefit at the expense of the public good; instead, they exist in service of such good. Similarly, "we the people" grant the government responsibility for regulating industry and corporate behavior to ensure that the public good is the singular priority, never compromised for short-term profit or corporate greed.
Many of our most successful government programs, which most of us take for granted, would never have transpired under libertarian rule. Here's a short list: labor laws, environmental protection, rural electrification, workplace safety laws, Social Security and disability protection, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, construction codes and fire safety, public broadcasting, Family and Medical Leave Act, product labeling and truth in advertising laws — the list goes on.
These accomplishments, and others, are rooted in a belief in the common good and collective rights, which stand in direct contrast to the philosophy of libertarianism.
A great example of the single-mindedness of libertarian thinking, blinded by antipathy toward government, was evident in a recent State News column, "Everybody wants a piece of government spending; lobbyists compete" (SN 1/13), by David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute.
Boaz writes, "When you spread food out on a picnic table, you can expect ants. When you put $3 trillion on the table, you can expect special interests, lobbyists and pork-barrel politicians. That's the real lesson of the Abramoff scandal."
Rather than looking to deeper explanations for the cause of corruption in Washington, Boaz simply falls back on his comfortable and overly simplistic anti-government agenda. The Abramoff scandal illuminates many problems inherent in the corporate-owned and money-drenched culture of greed pervasive in the Republican Party, but Boaz reflexively blames government spending for the problem.
How is Boaz's argument any different than blaming banks for robberies and embezzlement crimes? Why do banks stockpile all that money anyway? What do they expect? If we eliminate money from banks we'll eliminate the crime.
Such an argument only follows for those who don't believe banks serve a useful purpose. So for those who believe in the importance of government, the Abramoff scandal isn't an indictment of government spending, it's an indictment of bribe-fueled campaign financing.
Libertarians like Boaz view the Abramoff scandal as proof the government is oversized and spends too much money. Whereas, many liberals see the scandal as redundant evidence that our nation needs campaign finance reform, preferably publicly funded elections, so our politicians are indebted to the public, working for our interests, rather than for corporations and high-paid lobbyists.
John Bice is an MSU staff member. Reach him at bice@msu.edu.
